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

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

BASANTH LAL SAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

2% of the value of such alleged bogus purchases. 9. The CIT(A), after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee, and also the application filed by him seeking admission of certain documentary evidence as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observed that the copies of the invoices and e-way bills had already

VISWANADH KANDULA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

17. In the said search & seizure action in case of Exel Group, statement of Shri Gangaram Raghunath Reddy, M.D of Exel Group of companies was recorded on 17/01/2023 u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act. During the said statement, Shri Gangaram Raghunath Reddy was confronted with the statement of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka recorded on 04/01/2023 to 06/01/2023

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

17. In the said search & seizure action in case of Exel Group, statement of Shri Gangaram Raghunath Reddy, M.D of Exel Group of companies was recorded on 17/01/2023 u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act. During the said statement, Shri Gangaram Raghunath Reddy was confronted with the statement of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka recorded on 04/01/2023 to 06/01/2023

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6,08,84,018/- for the AY: 2015-16. 2. 2. Further, as the AO upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case decided that the present case is 'a fit case' for issuance of notice u/s 148 of 1.T.Act, as per clause

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6,08,84,018/- for the AY: 2015-16. 2. 2. Further, as the AO upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case decided that the present case is 'a fit case' for issuance of notice u/s 148 of 1.T.Act, as per clause

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6,08,84,018/- for the AY: 2015-16. 2. 2. Further, as the AO upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case decided that the present case is 'a fit case' for issuance of notice u/s 148 of 1.T.Act, as per clause

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the last panchanama was drawn in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2020, which is evident from the relevant panchanama which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee, wherein it has been clearly stated that, the search was finally concluded