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

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

bogus.\n5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be\nurged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee\ncompany filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on\n12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny

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

bogus.\n5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be\nurged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee\ncompany filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on\n12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The\ncase was selected

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

bogus purchases based on information from a search and seizure operation. The assessee argued that the reopening was invalid as it was beyond 4 years and based on a change of opinion, and that all necessary documentation for purchases had been provided.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after 4 years was not valid as there

SUJIT AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sujit Agarwal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Aclpa3197P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & The Managing Director Of The Company, M/S. Sawaria Pipes Pvt Ltd. He Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Impugned A.Y On 30.12.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.20,13,600/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.70,200/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 12.01.2016. In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act Issued On 6.9.2016, The Assessee Filed His Return

bogus LTCG. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of LTCG of Rs.6,89,76,599/- u/s 10(38) and made addition of Rs.7,97,38,105/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act by observing as under: Page 3 of 17 ITA No 369 of 2019 Sujit Agarwal Page

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

purchases which the assessee company had claimed to have made from M/s. Sauve Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, were bogus and, thus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure was treated by him as the income of the assessee company. The AO, based on his aforesaid observations after reducing the profit of Rs. 18,17,636/-, that the assessee company had claimed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

132 of the Act, has not been dealt with in any of the cases referred to by the Ld. Sr.A.R. Therefore, we reject the arguments of the Ld. Sr.A.R. present for the Revenue. 21. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessment orders passed