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

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

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

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. 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

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 of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all the captioned appeals

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

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 of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all the captioned appeals

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

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 of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all the captioned appeals

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

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 of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all the captioned appeals

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

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

Bench: Us :

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order and dismissing the appeal filed against the assessment order. 2. The Ld. CTT(A) erred

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

143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. 2.1 A search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Banwarlal Jain Group, a leading entry provider of Mumbai, was carried

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

143(3) r.w.s147 and U/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6 is contrary

KANISHK GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.34/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order and dismissing the appeal filed against the assessment order. 2. That Ld.. CIT(A) erred in not holding

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

143(2) of the Act on 26.09.2019. In response thereto, assessee filed a letter offering his explanation and the same was reproduced by the Assessing Officer at Paragraph 1.4 of his order, which is to the following effect : “1.4 In response to the notice u/s. 153 A, the assessee has filed a letter in this office on 25.06.2019 stating

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

143(2) of the Act on 26.09.2019. In response thereto, assessee filed a letter offering his explanation and the same was reproduced by the Assessing Officer at Paragraph 1.4 of his order, which is to the following effect : “1.4 In response to the notice u/s. 153 A, the assessee has filed a letter in this office on 25.06.2019 stating

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

143(2) of the Act on 26.09.2019. In response thereto, assessee filed a letter offering his explanation and the same was reproduced by the Assessing Officer at Paragraph 1.4 of his order, which is to the following effect : “1.4 In response to the notice u/s. 153 A, the assessee has filed a letter in this office on 25.06.2019 stating