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

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 28.06.2022 and served to the assessee. To verify the purchases, notices under 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

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 28.06.2022 and served to the assessee. To verify the purchases, notices under 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

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

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ. अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1566 & 1571/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Exel Rubber Private Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Central Circle 1 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Aaace4495J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 14/07/2025 For The A.Ys 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

bogus. 5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on 12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

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

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

bogus. 5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on 12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained