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

139(1), and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. 24. The purpose of inserting Explanation-5 in the statute books was explained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein

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

139 (Delhi). M/s BS Ltd., Hyd. 15.4 Ld. AR submitted that the AO erred in disallowing the interest expenditure without appreciating the fact that the purchases and sales with the above referred parties were made in the earlier assessment years also wherein they are accepted and assessment were completed without any additions. It is pertinent to note that the purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

bogus in nature. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the same. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer added Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 43. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by observing that,- “Ground No.5

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4 of Annexyre - A/ CAPPL/ OFF/ 01) Date 31.10.2017 - Rs.50,00,000 (page 3 of Annexyre A/ CAPPL/ OFF/ 01) Received back Date / (During November 2017) Rs.70,00,000/-..... 1. In view of the above the amount of cash paid and received back should not be treated as unexplained investment u/ s 69D of the Act. The cash of Rs.70

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4 of Annexyre - A/ CAPPL/ OFF/ 01) Date 31.10.2017 - Rs.50,00,000 (page 3 of Annexyre A/ CAPPL/ OFF/ 01) Received back Date / (During November 2017) Rs.70,00,000/-..... 1. In view of the above the amount of cash paid and received back should not be treated as unexplained investment u/ s 69D of the Act. The cash of Rs.70

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4 of Annexyre - A/ CAPPL/ OFF/ 01) Date 31.10.2017 - Rs.50,00,000 (page 3 of Annexyre A/ CAPPL/ OFF/ 01) Received back Date / (During November 2017) Rs.70,00,000/-..... 1. In view of the above the amount of cash paid and received back should not be treated as unexplained investment u/ s 69D of the Act. The cash of Rs.70

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

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

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