RAM GOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 28.06.2022 and served to the assessee. To verify the purchases, notices under Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 28.06.2022 and served to the assessee. To verify the purchases, notices under Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

Bench: Us :

2, or had reflected a substantially lower turnover in their Income-tax returns. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee in the year had made huge purchases from various agencies. On a perusal of the details, the A.O. 4 Basanth Lal Sah. observed that the assessee had, inter alia, made purchases

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

bogus purchases would give a completely distorted figure and held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% while also agreeing with decision of the Ld. CIT(A) & the Tribunal with regard to disclosure of Rs 61.05 lakhs. The details of purchases made

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2 -: ITA Nos. 755, 756 & 757/Hyd/2017 “1.The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI, Hyderabad dt.10.02.2017 to the extent to which it upheld the addition of Rs.9,04,500/- is contrary to law and facts. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have accepted the contention that reopening of the assessment is illegal and that the said assessment

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2 -: ITA Nos. 755, 756 & 757/Hyd/2017 “1.The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI, Hyderabad dt.10.02.2017 to the extent to which it upheld the addition of Rs.9,04,500/- is contrary to law and facts. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have accepted the contention that reopening of the assessment is illegal and that the said assessment

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2 -: ITA Nos. 755, 756 & 757/Hyd/2017 “1.The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI, Hyderabad dt.10.02.2017 to the extent to which it upheld the addition of Rs.9,04,500/- is contrary to law and facts. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have accepted the contention that reopening of the assessment is illegal and that the said assessment

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained