K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

234A and 234B are to be levied on returned income in place of assessed income as held by courts.” 4. As the facts and issues in all the appeals are same, except the amounts involved, we are reproducing the facts of appeal in ITA No.119/Hyd/2022 for the sake of brevity. We have not dealt with the various grounds raised

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

234A and 234B are to be levied on returned income in place of assessed income as held by courts.” 4. As the facts and issues in all the appeals are same, except the amounts involved, we are reproducing the facts of appeal in ITA No.119/Hyd/2022 for the sake of brevity. We have not dealt with the various grounds raised

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

234A and 234B are to be levied on returned income in place of assessed income as held by courts.” 4. As the facts and issues in all the appeals are same, except the amounts involved, we are reproducing the facts of appeal in ITA No.119/Hyd/2022 for the sake of brevity. We have not dealt with the various grounds raised

NAGI REDDY KONDAKALLA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

section 147 of I T Act without considering the contentions of the appellant. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the transaction was sham transaction without any sale consideration and out to have held that

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

234A of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 49,360/- towards prior period expenses. (v) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 9,212/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.961/H/2014