MEENA JEWELS AND PEARLS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

34 (SC) and submitted that at the time of issuing the notice u/sec.148 the Assessing Officer has to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case and sufficiency or correctness to the material was not a thing to be considered at this stage. The learned DR has also relied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act and viewed that estimation the extent of 70% of the profits declare is reasonable and accordingly allowed the exemption of 70% of the profits declared and the remining 30% of the profits are directed to be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect

MUSADDILALS JEWELLERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2)., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafcm 4841 H

34,421/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. 2.1 A search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Banwarlal Jain Group, a leading entry

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

PREMLATA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

SAJJAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section