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

VENKATARAMA SATYA SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY RAJU SAGI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.788/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi, Hyderabad. Pan:Athps0867M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram & Shri P. Vinod, Advocates रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 30.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

bogus purchases of Rs.13,58,94,043/- under section 37 of the Act and completed the reassessment under section 147 read with section 144 and 144B

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

144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee company filed additional evidence, which was forwarded by the CIT(A) to the AO for verification. In reply, the AO filed a “remand report" dated

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee company filed additional evidence, which was forwarded by the CIT(A) to the AO for verification. In reply, the AO filed a “remand report" dated

PREETI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 9(1), I.T. TOWERS, HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1174 & 1175/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Pan: Abmpm7172Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

144B of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2022 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.42,82,308/-. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee

PREETI GUPTA, HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 9(1), I.T. TOWERS, HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1174 & 1175/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Pan: Abmpm7172Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

144B of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2022 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.42,82,308/-. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee

MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

purchases, vouchers etc., but failed to furnish the Sales Tax/VAT/GST return, stock register, cash book and the details of the sundry creditors. The AO held a conviction that as the assessee had failed to produce copies of the Sales Tax return, GST return, therefore, the gross sales/turnover disclosed by him in his return of income was nothing but bogus. Accordingly

SHAILAJA KUNCHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailaja Kunchala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cfkpk9703B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav – Cit-Dr (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2024

section 282, particularly w.r.t. the businesses carried by Assessees in unorganised sector and thus a notice by registered post or a service through inspector ought to have been made before passing an Ex-parte order. 4. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)-NFAC erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs. 16,41 ,58,541/- made by the Assessing Officer referable

KASIREDDY SASIKALAMMA,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR

Bench: Us:

purchase is that of an agriculturist land and De information was voluntarily made available by the Appellant himself. (x) The sources for the same are not of the cash savings from agricultural activities as accommodated by the Appellant. Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68-Cash in Hand-Rs. 32,605/- 3 Kasireddy Sasikalamma (x) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has incorrect added

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022 are that, the assessee is an individual and e- filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,60,560/-. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reasons recorded, as per which, information received from Investigation Wing shows

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022 are that, the assessee is an individual and e- filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,60,560/-. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reasons recorded, as per which, information received from Investigation Wing shows

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022 are that, the assessee is an individual and e- filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,60,560/-. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reasons recorded, as per which, information received from Investigation Wing shows

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022 are that, the assessee is an individual and e- filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,60,560/-. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reasons recorded, as per which, information received from Investigation Wing shows

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

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