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

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld.Sr.AR, Shri Srinath Sadanala submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the purchases made from M/s Jagannath Agro to the tune of Rs.2,36,00,792/- is genuine, without appreciating the fact that Shri Shailabh Khandelwal

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

6. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the above case\nheld that the mere reliance by the Assessing Officer on\nthe statement of two persons made before the sale tax\ndepartment without giving the opportunity of cross\nexamine to the assessee was not sufficient to make the\naddition. The court held that if the Assessing Officer\ndoubted the purchases

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6 is contrary to law and facts

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Concord Drugs Limited, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad – 500 074. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc 8171 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri P. Muralimohan Rao Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 Order

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised six grounds in its appeal, and they are extracted herein below for reference: “(i) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on the facts as well as in law. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the addition

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

6 are general in nature and hence there is no\nneed of separate adjudication. Ground No.2 is raised against the\naddition amounting to Rs.74,92,000 made u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D. During\nassessment proceedings assessee was asked to furnish monthly\naver ages of the opening and closing balances of the value of\ninvestment. Details of investments are as follows

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that:- “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 4,42,69,513/- invoking the provisions of section

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

purchase turnover would suitably and proportionately get scaled down. Therefore, there is no error in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and their order should be upheld. 4 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that

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

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

250(6) of the Act for the Asst. Years 2003-04 to 2009-10. The Revenue has also filed appeals against the order of Ld. CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad for the AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited company engaged

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

250(6) of the Act for the Asst. Years 2003-04 to 2009-10. The Revenue has also filed appeals against the order of Ld. CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad for the AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited company engaged