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

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Learned Assessing Officer on verification, found that the assessee purchased 1,50,000 shares of M/s. Life Line Drugs & Pharma Ltd., at Rs. 6/- per share and sold the same at Rs. 283/- per share in a span of 19 months. She, therefore, entertained the doubt

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.

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. There is no finding either from survey team or from the Assessing Officer with regard to the number of shares sold by the appellant in respect of both the companies. Although, the appellant claims that it has sold part of equity shares and remaining shares are still held by the appellant

DEEPAK NAGORI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

section 10(38) of the Act. 3.3. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the events of purchase / sale, generation of capital gains and the claim u/s 10(38) of the Act thereof, are not as simple or lucid as stated to have been happened. There is some important circumstantial as well as direct evidences to show that the Long Term

VENU GOPAL KARWA,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Venu Gopal Karwa Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Karimnagar Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aavpk2698B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V Guna Sekhar Reddy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary, Hose Property & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 6.3.2016 Belatedly Declaring Taxable Income At Rs.47,71,060/-. The Return Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished The Requisite Details. One Of The Cass Reasons Page 1 Of 14

purchased at a cost of Rs.200/-. Later, on 14.08.2012, the company declared 9 bonus shares for every one share held by each shareholder. Accordingly, 4500 shares are received by the assessee for 500 shares held by him, Further, the company has reduced its share value of Rs. 10/- to Rs. 1/- per share by converting 1 share of Rs. 10

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

10(38) of the Act. We noted the same from the Bill furnished by the assessee of M/s. Jatadhari Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata as a proof of purchase of shares. The Assessing Officer verified the details and noted that these bills for purchase of shares are on two different dates consisting of 2 lacs shares each

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

10(38) of the Act. We noted the same from the Bill furnished by the assessee of M/s. Jatadhari Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata as a proof of purchase of shares. The Assessing Officer verified the details and noted that these bills for purchase of shares are on two different dates consisting of 2 lacs shares each

BASANTH LAL SAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

38%, as against 10 Basanth Lal Sah. 8.49% that was disclosed by the assessee during the subject year. As such, the assessee had submitted before the A.O. that, even if the purchases were to be assumed as bogus, the addition in his case could not have exceeded 2% of the value of such alleged bogus purchases

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

38) of the Act come into play. 10. She further argued that the share transactions taken place is real and correct. She assailed the veracity of the evidence with the learned Assessing Officer in the shape of a report said to have been received by the learned Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. She vehemently contended that the transaction

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that though it was the claim of the assessee that she acquired the jewellery in June, 1998 but had no material to substantiate her said claim except for the statement of her Mother, therefore, the AO had declined to accept the same primarily for the reason that no Wealth Tax returns in support thereof

SRINIVAS SHAH RADRARAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , 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.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. There is no finding either from survey team or from the Assessing Officer with regard to the number of shares sold by the appellant in respect of both the companies. Although, the appellant claims that it has sold part of equity shares and remaining shares are still held by the appellant

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

38,10,750/-, and the assessee set off a capital loss of Rs. 6,167.47 from the sale of Reliance Power Ltd shares, calculating a net LTCG of Rs. 36,76,913, which was fully claimed as exempt. Assessee invested in M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited by purchasing 1,00,000 shares at Rs.1/- per share in 2012. These shares

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF) ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

38,10,750/-, and the assessee set off a capital loss of Rs. 6,167.47 from the sale of Reliance Power Ltd shares, calculating a net LTCG of Rs. 36,76,913, which was fully claimed as exempt. Assessee invested in M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited by purchasing 1,00,000 shares at Rs.1/- per share in 2012. These shares

PRIYA DARSHINI KIMTEE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

purchased by Jama Kharchi companies/Paper Companies based at Kolkata with no financial credentials which were being controlled and managed by the operators who were engaged in providing the bogus LTCTG for a commission. Page 7 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed the following facts: Page

TULSIDEVI AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

purchased by Jama Kharchi companies/Paper Companies based at Kolkata with no financial credentials which were being controlled and managed by the operators who were engaged in providing the bogus LTCTG for a commission. Page 7 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed the following facts: Page

RAVINDRA KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

purchased by Jama Kharchi companies/Paper Companies based at Kolkata with no financial credentials which were being controlled and managed by the operators who were engaged in providing the bogus LTCTG for a commission. Page 7 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed the following facts: Page