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

R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

143(3) of the Act, dated 30/03/2022,\nwas barred by limitation as per section 153B r.w.s 292CC of the Act.\nAlthough, it was the claim of the assessee company that as the search\nin the case of the assessee company was concluded based on the last\npanchnama drawn on 09/02/2020 and the outer limit expired on\n30/09/2021 after giving effect

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

143(3) r.w section 144B of the Act, dated 03.09.2021, determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. 161,11,36,087/- under the normal provisions and “book profit” under section 115JB at Rs. 231,31,26,864/- after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

143(3) r.w\nsection 144B of the Act, dated 03.09.2021, determined the income of\nthe assessee company at Rs. 161,11,36,087/- under the normal\nprovisions and “book profit” under section 115JB at Rs. 231,31,26,864/-\nafter making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that\nthe

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

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

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21 are clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed by the A.O. for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21. 22. The next issue

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21 are clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed by the A.O. for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21. 22. The next issue

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21 are clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed by the A.O. for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21. 22. The next issue

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21 are clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed by the A.O. for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21. 22. The next issue