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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

H.S.VARMA GEMS & JEWELS ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

Section 147,148,149,150,151 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The CIT(A) failed to note that the assessment proceeding was conducted merely on the basis of the information received by the DGIT, Mumbai despite submitting all the necessary evidences and as such there was no independent application of mind to assess the genuineness of the purchases

H.S.VARMA GEMS & JEWELS ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

Section 147,148,149,150,151 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The CIT(A) failed to note that the assessment proceeding was conducted merely on the basis of the information received by the DGIT, Mumbai despite submitting all the necessary evidences and as such there was no independent application of mind to assess the genuineness of the purchases

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

purchase of fuel from\nthe aforesaid party and had received the amount as mentioned in the\nnoting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, therefore, are unable to\nconcur with the CIT(A) who had upheld the impugned unsubstantiated\naddition made by the AO only for the reason that there was a similarity\nin the names of the parties mentioned

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

purchase of fuel from\nthe aforesaid party and had received the amount as mentioned in the\nnoting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, therefore, are unable to\nconcur with the CIT(A) who had upheld the impugned unsubstantiated\naddition made by the AO only for the reason that there was a similarity\nin the names of the parties mentioned

NARESH SAMALA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President)

150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the large cash deposits during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease in profitability as compared to previous years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 88,84,100/- into his bank account during

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

sections 26988 and 269T of the IT Act. Thus, the assessing officer was clearly in his mind that all six persons violated the Provisions of the Act by accepting cash deposits through the assessee and processing the same through his account. In such circumstances it is not justifiable to treat all those deposits as that of the assessee u/s.68

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

sections 26988 and 269T of the IT Act. Thus, the assessing officer was clearly in his mind that all six persons violated the Provisions of the Act by accepting cash deposits through the assessee and processing the same through his account. In such circumstances it is not justifiable to treat all those deposits as that of the assessee u/s.68

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

150 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n10.00,000 Contra Entries & Other Advances\n3,000 Commessions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n650 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Businest Experies\n26,654 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n1,250 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n7,800 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n1,740 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n10,000 Commission & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

150\n3,000\nCommissions & Other Mocefaneous Buuness Expenses\nCommissions & Other Miscellaneous Bussen Exponen\nCommissions & Other Miscelaneous Business Expemes\nCommissions & Other Mistellaneous Rosanesi Exponits\nCommissions & Other Macellaneous Rosanesi Exponits\n04-04-2013 Cath\n25-04-2013 Ch\n25-04-2017 C\n650\nons albice flouung charges) & mohan\n26,654\nCommissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expnies\nCommissions & Other Mücellaneous Busiσετε Εκφυτες

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

purchase money was not satisfactory, but in instant case it is impossible for the assessee of such tender age to earn the amount for a decade more. The Tribunal held that section 69 confers only a discretion on the Assessing Officer to deal with investment and it does not make it mandatory to deal w income of the assessee

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

150 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n10.00,000 Contra Entries & Other Advances\n3,000 Commessions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n650 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Businest Experies\n26,654 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n1,250 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n7,800 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n1,740 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n10,000 Commission & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

150 Commissions & Other Mistellaneous Busness Expenses\n010-2013 C\nsorting labour charges-struparach\n3,000 Commissions & Other Macellaneous Rosanesi Exponits\n04-04-2013 Cath\n100 days coment-temport-jadve antony\n650 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Exponies\n25-04-2013 Cath\nons albice flouung charges) & mohan\n26,654 Commissions & Other Mücellaneous Busiσετε Εκφυτες\n25-04-2017 C\nlaterges