RAM GOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

nature of business undertaken by the Taxpayer. In the instant appeal, since there is information regarding the purchases being bogus, corresponding sales will be treated as ingenuine sales, and profit element will be taxed at an estimation basis, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.5. In view of the statement of the receiving end of the payments

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

purchases, the AO cannot make the addition by merely relying on statement of third party, Shri Khandelwal; without the appellant being afforded any opportunity of cross examination of that person. Therefore, the order of AO suffers from legal infirmities, deficiencies and is against the due procedure of natural justice. 6.5. On the issue of bogus

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

purchases, the AO cannot make the addition by merely relying on statement of third party, Shri Khandelwal; without the appellant being afforded any opportunity of cross examination of that person. Therefore, the order of AO suffers from legal infirmities, deficiencies and is against the due procedure of natural justice. 6.5. On the issue of bogus

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

nature of business along with required documents. Subsequently, after conducting the hearings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt.25.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs.2,43,76,665/-. While doing the so, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs.2,29,56,125/- as expenditure claimed towards bogus purchases, including

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

nature of business along with required documents. Subsequently, after conducting the hearings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt.25.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs.2,43,76,665/-. While doing the so, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs.2,29,56,125/- as expenditure claimed towards bogus purchases, including

AMARAVATI,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

nature of business along with required documents. Subsequently, after conducting the hearings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt.25.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs.2,43,76,665/-. While doing the so, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs.2,29,56,125/- as expenditure claimed towards bogus purchases, including

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

nature of business along with required documents. Subsequently, after conducting the hearings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt.25.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs.2,43,76,665/-. While doing the so, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs.2,29,56,125/- as expenditure claimed towards bogus purchases, including

MUSADDILAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.272/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Musaddilal Jewellers Private Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecm1213A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Bhupesh Kumar Dand ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr

natural justice. It is further to state that the assessee needs to substantiate his claim of purchase which is actually made very first time from the said parties which itself is against own principles that the purchases are made always from someone known or known of someone and payment is made after the end of the credit time but these

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.

purchased these penny stocks from beneficiaries are shell paper Companies and are controlled by him for providing bogus LTCG entries. 7.15 a) In the GOA no. 14,15,16 the Appellant contended as under: * AO erred in ignoring the affidavit of retraction of statements dated 30.09.2015. * AO ought to appreciate that when statements were recorded the Appellant was medically unfit

SUBHASH KUMAR KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

Justice (e) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the transaction of Long Rs. Term Capital Gains declared by the assessee was not genuine, merely based on statements of third parties, which statements were not specifically related the transaction of the appellant, but only are general in nature and on suspension of share trading activity of M/s. Surabhi Page

BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

Justice (e) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the transaction of Long Rs. Term Capital Gains declared by the assessee was not genuine, merely based on statements of third parties, which statements were not specifically related the transaction of the appellant, but only are general in nature and on suspension of share trading activity of M/s. Surabhi Page

MEENA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED PART IX ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2008-09

nature of bogus sales. The assessee was therefore asked to produce purchase registers, sales registers and bank account statement in order to verify the bogus purchases from these groups. The assessee did not appear and not submitted any information. The AO, therefore, treated the entire sum of Rs. 10,08,993/- as bogus purchases and brought it to tax. Aggrieved

VENKATARAMA SATYA SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY RAJU SAGI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.788/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi, Hyderabad. Pan:Athps0867M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram & Shri P. Vinod, Advocates रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 30.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

bogus purchases either before the Ld. AO or the Ld. CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances. However, the assessee is now in possession of all necessary supporting evidences, which he is willing to furnish to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has suffered due to non-compliance but prayed for one more opportunity

HPC ELECTRICALS LTD., HYD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Hpc Electricals Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaach 6014 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Bogus purchases' of the material' on the presumptive basis. 3. Having observed that the assessee-appellant produced purchase invoices, way bills, Ledger extract of the appellant account in the books of the supplier duly certified by the Chartered Accountant-confirmation of utilization of steel by the Asst.Engineer, Constructions, APCPDL, Mahaboobnagar Dt., and other supporting documentary evidence referred to in para

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

bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as ‘un-accounted income’; and it is for the assessee to establish creditworthiness of companies and that rise of price of shares within a short period of time was genuine, genuineness could not be established merely on basis of documents

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

bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as ‘un-accounted income’; and it is for the assessee to establish creditworthiness of companies and that rise of price of shares within a short period of time was genuine, genuineness could not be established merely on basis of documents

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , HYDERABAD vs. AMR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

bogus transactions as genuine, therefore, the assessee's argument that the assessee has made payment through bank would not materially alter the stand on purchases more particularly since the direct and circumstantial evidence clearly indicate that the purchases were not genuine. Therefore, the duty is cast on the assessee to prove his claim made in the return of income

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. S.P.Y AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus purchases and the addition\nhas been restricted to 8% of Rs.23,31,50,007/- by Ld. CIT(A).\n5. With regard to the first issue, the Ld. DR submitted that, during\nthe year under consideration, there was an increase in share capital by\nRs.4,56,47,500/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO called for the explanation\nfrom the assessee