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\nthe A

bogus purchases. Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT\n[2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the\nrevenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The\nAO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained\nby the assessee. In the absence of any contrary

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

250(6) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal before or in course of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information shared by the Director General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, Hyderabad that the assessee company had irregularly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

250/- per share on 31/03/2012 through Festino Vincom Pvt Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently. M/s. Baviscon Ltd. issued bonus shares of 79 for each share held on 20/07/2012 thereby taking the total number of shares to 12,800. Subsequently, ten shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. were allotted for each share of M/s. Baviscon

SEEMA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1112/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Seema Jain Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Afnpj4732N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading In Jewellery & Also Job Work For Her Customers, Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 12.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,09,720/- The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax

250 of the Act dated 27.08.2024 vide paras 4.5 to 4.7 allowed the contention of the assessee, stating that the request for rectification involves a simple arithmetic and therefore the rejection of the assessee’s plea that it is not a mistake apparent from record is unjustified. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that when the purported sales were treated

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

bogus invoices to route funds, the authenticity of sales of cement as stated by the assessee is in question and hence, the explanation is not satisfactory. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,29,91,000/- was added u/s 68. 6.1 The appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove that sales receipts from M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt Ltd was genuine. Appellant relied

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

bogus invoices to route funds, the\nauthenticity of sales of cement as stated by the assessee is in\nquestion and hence, the explanation is not satisfactory. Hence, an\namount of Rs.1,29,91,000/- was added u/s 68.\n6.1 The appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove that\nsales receipts from M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt Ltd was genuine.\nAppellant relied

REEMA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

250\n291,95,664\nProfi/(loss)\n11,21,023\n(41,92,500)\n(599,19,659)\n(629,91,135)\nIt is noticed from the details furnished by the assessee that the book value of shares of\nShree Shaleen was Rs 10.60 per share (before split) as on 31-03-2013 and Rs 0.21 per\nshare(after split

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

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\n2,200 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expentes\n800,000 Contra Entries & Other Advances\nScrap Realization\n3.500 Commissiens & Other Miscelaneous Business Εκρηκίες\n4,700 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory\n7,575 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory

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

250\nCommissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n18012111 Can\nKorad\n7,800\nCommissions & Other Miscellaneous Busness Expermes\n1004-2013 Ca\n1,740\nCommissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n11-08-2011 C\n20 metal thing à cumula\n10,000\nCommissions & Other Mücelaneous Business Expenses\n12-06-2015 Cas\nCASH PAID 10 P SUNDERA RAMI REDDY\n2,200\nCommissions & Other Miscelaneous Business Expentét

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

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\n2,200 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expentes\n800,000 Contra Entries & Other Advances\nScrap Realization\n3.500 Commissiens & Other Miscelaneous Business Εκρηκίες\n4,700 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory\n7,575 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory

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

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

250 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n09-04-2013 Cas\nKorad\n7,800 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Busness Expermes\n18012111 Can\n1004-2013 Ca\n20 metal thing à cumula\n1,740 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n11-08-2011 C\n10,000 Commissions & Other Mücelaneous Business Expenses\n12-06-2015 Cas\nCASH PAID 10 P SUNDERA RAMI REDDY\n2,200 Commissions

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

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

250 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses.\n7,800 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Busness Expermes\n1,740 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n10,000 Commissions & Other Mücelaneous Business Expenses\n2,200 Commissions & Other Miscelaneous Business Expentét\n8.00,000 Contra Entries & Other Advances\nScrap Realization\n3.500 Commissiens & Other Miscelaneous Business Expenses\n4,700 Repars & Maintenance-Factory\n7,575 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory

MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

purchases, vouchers etc., but failed to furnish the Sales Tax/VAT/GST return, stock register, cash book and the details of the sundry creditors. The AO held a conviction that as the assessee had failed to produce copies of the Sales Tax return, GST return, therefore, the gross sales/turnover disclosed by him in his return of income was nothing but bogus. Accordingly