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

145 taxmann.com 546 has held that the AO had not finished the investigation in the case and had not looked into the affidavits and confirmation letters submitted by the assessee from the dealers from whom it made purchases. The assessee demonstrated the fact of making purchases from these parties, and the AO presented no evidence to contradict this. Further

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nthe A

145 taxmann.com 546 has held that the AO had\nnot finished the investigation in the case and had not\nlooked into the affidavits and confirmation letters\nsubmitted by the assessee from the dealers from whom\nit made purchases. The assessee demonstrated the\nfact of making purchases from these parties, and the\nAO presented no evidence to contradict this. Further,\nthe

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

145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated 16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition under the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred under section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull

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

bogus purchases in its books of accounts. The\nAO, based on his aforesaid observations, which though were explicitly\nrecorded only in context of the aforementioned three entries, however\ndrew adverse inferences with respect to 24 entries mentioned in the\nseized document, viz., Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02 and made an addition\nof Rs.20,35,50,000/- by treating

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

145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated\n16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition\nunder the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G\nin respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred\nunder section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of\nclarity, we deem it apposite to cull

SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus warranting addition in the income of\nthe assessee. It is again submitted that there is no dispute\nthat the goods have been purchased and the genuinity of the\npurchase have not been disputed and it was because that the\nprovisions of section 40A(3) have been applied. Moreover, the\nassessee maintained day-to-day stock register wherein the\nraw

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

bogus purchases in its books of accounts. The\nAO, based on his aforesaid observations, which though were explicitly\nrecorded only in context of the aforementioned three entries, however\ndrew adverse inferences with respect to 24 entries mentioned in the\nseized document, viz., Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02 and made an addition\nof Rs.20,35,50,000/- by treating

VENU GOPAL KARWA,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Venu Gopal Karwa Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Karimnagar Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aavpk2698B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V Guna Sekhar Reddy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary, Hose Property & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 6.3.2016 Belatedly Declaring Taxable Income At Rs.47,71,060/-. The Return Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished The Requisite Details. One Of The Cass Reasons Page 1 Of 14

145 Broker through B. N. Rathi Securities Ltd whom shares sold 5. He noted that the assessee initially purchased 500 shares of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd., through M/s. Akriti Advisory Services P. Ltd., and it is a second purchase through stock exchange vide their bill dated 31.03.2012 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, Thus, each share was purchased

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)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

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)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

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)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

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)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from