ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

carry-out it's\nbusiness more efficiently and profitably and, therefore, it is\nallowable as revenue expenditure as per the provisions of\nu/sec.37(1) of the Act. In support of this contention, the Learned\nCounsel for the Assessee relied on the decision of Coordinate\nBench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Madhucon Toll\nHighways Ltd., Hyderabad vs., ACIT, Circle

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

forward his case before the AO but he chose not to do so for reasons best known to him. e) As evident from paras 5 and 5.1 of assessment order it is clear that reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to appellant but the appellant chose not to avail the said opportunities for reasons best known

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee company filed “additional evidence\" relating to its claim for deduction under section 801A of the Act, including its plant-wise production and coal consumption data, that was admitted and forwarded to the AO for remand report. In reply, the AO submitted a “remand

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

forwarded\nby the CIT(A) to the AO for verification. In reply, the AO filed a “remand\nreport\" dated 09.01.2024. Thereafter, the assessee company filed a\nrejoinder dated 08.08.2024. The CIT(A), after considering the material\non record, deleted all the additions made by the AO. For the sake of\nclarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

carried out by the assessee is Page 5 of 28 genuine and the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (Appeals) are not correct in holding that the share transaction is not genuine. 11. He further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) presumed that the transactions entered into by the assessee also are not genuine

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

carried out by the assessee is genuine and the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(Appeals) are not correct in holding that the share transaction is not genuine. 11. She further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) presumed that the transactions entered into by the assessee also are not genuine, but this presumption

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus expenditure were confronted to the assessee with respect to two sub-contractors namely, Global Construction company and Gaurav Construction company, the assessee had further admitted an amount of Rs.1,48,99,595/- (Paragraph 4.23 of the assessment order). 24.1. We find that the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with respect to the loose sheets / documents found from

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus expenditure were confronted to the assessee with respect to two sub-contractors namely, Global Construction company and Gaurav Construction company, the assessee had further admitted an amount of Rs.1,48,99,595/- (Paragraph 4.23 of the assessment order). 24.1. We find that the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with respect to the loose sheets / documents found from

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus expenditure were confronted to the assessee with respect to two sub-contractors namely, Global Construction company and Gaurav Construction company, the assessee had further admitted an amount of Rs.1,48,99,595/- (Paragraph 4.23 of the assessment order). 24.1. We find that the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with respect to the loose sheets / documents found from

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus expenditure were confronted to the assessee with respect to two sub-contractors namely, Global Construction company and Gaurav Construction company, the assessee had further admitted an amount of Rs.1,48,99,595/- (Paragraph 4.23 of the assessment order). 24.1. We find that the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with respect to the loose sheets / documents found from

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus expenditure were confronted to the assessee with respect to two sub-contractors namely, Global Construction company and Gaurav Construction company, the assessee had further admitted an amount of Rs.1,48,99,595/- (Paragraph 4.23 of the assessment order). 24.1. We find that the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with respect to the loose sheets / documents found from

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus expenditure were confronted to the assessee with respect to two sub-contractors namely, Global Construction company and Gaurav Construction company, the assessee had further admitted an amount of Rs.1,48,99,595/- (Paragraph 4.23 of the assessment order). 24.1. We find that the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with respect to the loose sheets / documents found from

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus expenditure were confronted to the assessee with respect to two sub-contractors namely, Global Construction company and Gaurav Construction company, the assessee had further admitted an amount of Rs.1,48,99,595/- (Paragraph 4.23 of the assessment order). 24.1. We find that the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with respect to the loose sheets / documents found from

NAGESWARA RAO PINNETI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

forwarded by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata wherein it is clearly mentioned that this company is a bogus company i.e. paper Company which is not holding any worth in the market and the same was confirmed in the statements recorded from the operators in which scrip of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited was treated as penny stock, were shown

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

forwarded by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata wherein it is clearly mentioned that this company is a bogus company i.e. paper Company which is not holding any worth in the market and the same was confirmed in the statements recorded from the operators in which scrip of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited was treated as penny stock, were shown

GOVIND KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

forwarded by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata wherein it is clearly mentioned that this company is a bogus company i.e. paper Company which is not holding any worth in the market and the same was confirmed in the statements recorded from the operators in which scrip of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited was treated as penny stock, were shown

NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

forwarded by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata wherein it is clearly mentioned that this company is a bogus company i.e. paper Company which is not holding any worth in the market and the same was confirmed in the statements recorded from the operators in which scrip of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited was treated as penny stock, were shown

SUMEET KUMAR AGARWAL ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

forwarded by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata wherein it is clearly mentioned that this company is a bogus company i.e. paper Company which is not holding any worth in the market and the same was confirmed in the statements recorded from the operators in which scrip of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited was treated as penny stock, were shown