VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

132 of the L.T. Act was executed on the assessee on 04.01.2023. The AO has in his possession seized material which reveals that the assessee company received unaccounted cash receipts, scrap sales, cash generated from adjustment of purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

132 of the L.T. Act was executed on the assessee on 04.01.2023. The AO has in his possession seized material which reveals that the assessee company received unaccounted cash receipts, scrap sales, cash generated from adjustment of purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

132 of the L.T. Act was executed on the assessee on 04.01.2023. The AO has in his possession seized material which reveals that the assessee company received unaccounted cash receipts, scrap sales, cash generated from adjustment of purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

132 of the L.T. Act was executed on the assessee on 04.01.2023. The AO has in his possession seized material which reveals that the assessee company received unaccounted cash receipts, scrap sales, cash generated from adjustment of purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6

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

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

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

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kanhaiyalal [2008] 299 ITR 19, where it held that- "We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kanhaiyalal [2008] 299 ITR 19, where it held that- "We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kanhaiyalal [2008] 299 ITR 19, where it held that- "We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment

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.

1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order both on law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground that the issue of notice U/s 148 by the Assessing Officer is without Jurisdiction. 3. On the facts

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

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

1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order both on law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground that the issue of notice U/s 148 by the Assessing Officer is without Jurisdiction. 3. On the facts

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

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

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

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