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

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

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 purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

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 purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

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

11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that the issues raised in all the four appeals are identical except for the amounts involved. In view

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

11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that the issues raised in all the four appeals are identical except for the amounts involved. In view

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

11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that the issues raised in all the four appeals are identical except for the amounts involved. In view

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

11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that the issues raised in all the four appeals are identical except for the amounts involved. In view

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

Bench: Us :

bogus purchases solely on the grounds that the creditors did not respond to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act and that the creditors did not file their income tax returns. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions ignoring the judgements of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Tribunals. 11. The Appellant prays for leave

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

bogus. 3.15.2. Erred in making proportionate disallowance of interest without appreciating the fact that the assessee has already offered profit and paid tax on the related purchases which is higher than certain percentage of the above expenditure which could have disallowed. 3.15.3. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the VAT/Service tax obligations have been duly complied with by assessee

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

11. CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta, 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 12. Ramlila Pravin Shah, ITA No. 5246/Mum/2013. Dt. 05/03/2015. 6. Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A) and submitted that AO has elaborately discussed the issue in his report. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that

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

11. Having said so, let us come back to the issue on hand. Admittedly, the appellant has purchased 42,500 equity shares of Sharp Trading Company on 29.3.2012 for a consideration of Rs.4,25,000/-. The appellant had also purchased 50,000 equity shares of Turbo Tech Engineering on 26/12/2011 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee

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

11. Having said so, let us come back to the issue on hand. Admittedly, the appellant has purchased 42,500 equity shares of Sharp Trading Company on 29.3.2012 for a consideration of Rs.4,25,000/-. The appellant had also purchased 50,000 equity shares of Turbo Tech Engineering on 26/12/2011 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Rohini Minerals Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccr0773N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr 05.02.2025 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

bogus purchases from the related party, but the LD.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by accepting the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be sustained. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate, on the other hand, supporting the order of LD.CIT

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

ADITYA MUNDADA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.631/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Aditya Mundada, The Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Vs. Ward – 5, Pan : Bdspm1712R. Warangal. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2243/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Purushotham Mundada The Assistant Commissioner (Huf), Vs. Of Income Tax, Warangal. Circle – 1, Pan : Aahhpoo47D. Hyderabad. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B of SEBI Act, hereby revoke the interim order dated March 29, 2016 and confirmatory orders dated June 15, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 21, 2016, October 27, 2016 and July 13, 2017 qua aforesaid 244 entities (paragraph 5 above) with immediate effect. 8. The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders

PURUSHOTHAM MUNDADA ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.631/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Aditya Mundada, The Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Vs. Ward – 5, Pan : Bdspm1712R. Warangal. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2243/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Purushotham Mundada The Assistant Commissioner (Huf), Vs. Of Income Tax, Warangal. Circle – 1, Pan : Aahhpoo47D. Hyderabad. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B of SEBI Act, hereby revoke the interim order dated March 29, 2016 and confirmatory orders dated June 15, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 21, 2016, October 27, 2016 and July 13, 2017 qua aforesaid 244 entities (paragraph 5 above) with immediate effect. 8. The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders