DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

bogus in nature and thus rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 2,36,00,792/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had filed relevant evidences, including bills in support of purchases from

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nthe A

bogus in nature and thus rejected the arguments of\nthe assessee and made addition of Rs.2,36,00,792/- to the total\nincome of the assessee.\n5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A),\nthe assessee had filed relevant evidences, including bills in\nsupport of purchases from

R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

bogus purchases in its books of accounts. The\nAO, based on his aforesaid observations, which though were explicitly\nrecorded only in context of the aforementioned three entries, however\ndrew adverse inferences with respect to 24 entries mentioned in the\nseized document, viz., Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02 and made an addition\nof Rs.20,35,50,000/- by treating

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

bogus purchases in its books of accounts. The\nAO, based on his aforesaid observations, which though were explicitly\nrecorded only in context of the aforementioned three entries, however\ndrew adverse inferences with respect to 24 entries mentioned in the\nseized document, viz., Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02 and made an addition\nof Rs.20,35,50,000/- by treating

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

purchases which the assessee company had claimed to have made from M/s. Sauve Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, were bogus and, thus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure was treated by him as the income of the assessee company. The AO, based on his aforesaid observations after reducing the profit of Rs. 18,17,636/-, that the assessee company had claimed

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

purchases are made by the assessee in good faith and all the bills are given at hand length prices. The said transactions are made in the normal course of the business. As such there are no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on the ground.” 4. The assessee also raised the following additional ground before

SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

purchased shares of MG Ltd. and on its amalgamation, was allotted shares of AG Ltd. in exchange for its existing holding and whose cost of acquisition has been claimed as eligible deduction and net sale consideration has been claimed as exempt as long-term capital gains. (Para 18) The AO has started with the conclusion, that the assessee is involved

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

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

bogus, it should be added to income from cement unit or power unit accordingly, instead of attributing them to 801A deduction. Hence it is held that 1% disallowance of total expenses of the company from deduction u/s 80IA is unwarranted. As a result, ground no 4 is allowed. 6. Ground No.5 is raised against disallowance U/s 80IA to the tune

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

bogus, it should be added to\nincome from cement unit or power unit accordingly, instead of\nattributing them to 801A deduction. Hence it is held that 1%\ndisallowance of total expenses of the company from deduction u/s\n80IA is unwarranted. As a result, ground no 4 is allowed.\n6. Ground No.5 is raised against disallowance U/s 80IA to the tune

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

bogus in nature which are not supported by necessary bills and vouchers. On the other hand, assessee has furnished all the evidences including relevant work order, tax invoice and delivery challans of goods purchased from M/s Pradeep Kumar Babulal & Co. and also filed relevant bank statement to prove payment through proper banking channel. Once the assessee has filed all relevant

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

bogus in nature which are not supported by necessary bills and vouchers. On the other hand, assessee has furnished all the evidences including relevant work order, tax invoice and delivery challans of goods purchased from M/s Pradeep Kumar Babulal & Co. and also filed relevant bank statement to prove payment through proper banking channel. Once the assessee has filed all relevant

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus and that the department has no case to disbelieve the credits in the\nbooks by way of advances. It is also stated in the reply that all the above persons are\nabsconding because of a criminal case instituted against them due to which confirmation\nletters could not be procured and the lapse in this regard is due to impossibility

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus and that the department has no case to disbelieve the credits in the\nbooks by way of advances. It is also stated in the reply that all the above persons are\nabsconding because of a criminal case instituted against them due to which confirmation\nletters could not be procured and the lapse in this regard is due to impossibility

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

deduction. 4) Ground 10: Disallowance of Rs.2,77,09,907 made for purportedly bogus development expenditure. 5) Ground 11: Disallowance of Rs.8,41,87,239 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6) Ground 12: Addition of Rs.18,47,25,000 due to non-production of confirmations. 7) Ground 13: Addition of 13.81 crores as unrecorded cash payments