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

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

S. KHAJA RAMTHULLA, KADAPA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, PRODDATUR, PRODDATUR

In the result, both cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito,Ward-2 Vs. Sadhanakari Khaja Vasanthapet Rahmathulla Proddatur-516 360 Chintapalli(Village) Kalasapadu(Mandal) Kadapa(District) Andhra Pradesh

145 of the IT Act and estimating the income. From the same it is an implied fact that the assessing officer gone through the account books and verified all purchases, sales and expenditures etc. As the account books of the respective assessees clearly reflected the sources for purchases of liquor by the respective persons, it is clearly established that

ITO, WARD-2, PRODDATUR, PRODDATUR vs. SADHANAKARI KHAJA RAMTHULLA, KADAPA, KADAPA

In the result, both cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito,Ward-2 Vs. Sadhanakari Khaja Vasanthapet Rahmathulla Proddatur-516 360 Chintapalli(Village) Kalasapadu(Mandal) Kadapa(District) Andhra Pradesh

145 of the IT Act and estimating the income. From the same it is an implied fact that the assessing officer gone through the account books and verified all purchases, sales and expenditures etc. As the account books of the respective assessees clearly reflected the sources for purchases of liquor by the respective persons, it is clearly established that

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

145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav Agarwal ARHPA2978D 23,345 19,204 Subhash Chand AAJPG6304J 20,002 6,486 Gaoddia Umesh Kumar Agarwal AAAHU5753L 21,340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G

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

145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav Agarwal ARHPA2978D 23,345 19,204 Subhash Chand AAJPG6304J 20,002 6,486 Gaoddia Umesh Kumar Agarwal AAAHU5753L 21,340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G