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

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

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

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

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

143(3) r.w.s.147, are same and equally applicable and available in other cases also. Hence allowing some payments and disallowing others on similar and identical set of facts is unjustified and arbitrary. This establishes the fact that the disallowance is only on presumptions and not based on any concrete evidences. vi. The theory of the Assessing Officer that assesseeresorted

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

143(3) r.w.s.147, are same and equally applicable and available in other cases also. Hence allowing some payments and disallowing others on similar and identical set of facts is unjustified and arbitrary. This establishes the fact that the disallowance is only on presumptions and not based on any concrete evidences. vi. The theory of the Assessing Officer that assesseeresorted

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

143(3) r.w.s.147, are same and equally applicable and available in other cases also. Hence allowing some payments and disallowing others on similar and identical set of facts is unjustified and arbitrary. This establishes the fact that the disallowance is only on presumptions and not based on any concrete evidences. vi. The theory of the Assessing Officer that assesseeresorted

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

143(3) r.w.s.147, are same and equally applicable and available in other cases also. Hence allowing some payments and disallowing others on similar and identical set of facts is unjustified and arbitrary. This establishes the fact that the disallowance is only on presumptions and not based on any concrete evidences. vi. The theory of the Assessing Officer that assesseeresorted

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

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

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

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