KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

b), on or before such date, in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income or such income is otherwise disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before the said date ; or (2) he, in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub- section

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

271 (SC).\nWe thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, are of a firm\nconviction that as both the lower authorities had merely acted upon the\nnoting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, and had failed to bring any\nmaterial on record which would conclusively reveal that the assessee\ncompany had booked bogus expenses towards the purchase of fuel from

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar Gupta Page 4 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar Gupta Page 4 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar

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

DEEPAK NAGORI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

B' bought 10,000 shares of company "p" @ Rs.1/- per share and sold it @ Rs.1000/- per share, he would make on paper capital gain of Rs.49,90,000/-. In his bank account there would be a cheque deposit of Rs 50,00,000/- paid by the paper company that buys the shares. The receipt is prima facie exempt from

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act\n1961 are initiated for concealment of income.\n(Disallowance: Rs 6,41,12,159/-)\n6.1.\nThus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has\nproceeded by taking the book value of these two scrips as on\n31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 prior and post-split of shares. It\nis pertinent to note that the shares

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

271 (SC).\nWe thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, are of a firm\nconviction that as both the lower authorities had merely acted upon the\nnoting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, and had failed to bring any\nmaterial on record which would conclusively reveal that the assessee\ncompany had booked bogus expenses towards the purchase of fuel from

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 2093/Hyd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Tarun Kumar Goyal Dy. CIT, (HUF), Vs. Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. [PAN : AABHT6646N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 455/Hyd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Tarun Kumar