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

Bench: Us :

Section 133(6) of the Act could not have been pressed into service by the authorities below for doubting the authenticity of the purchase transactions. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that now when the assessee, to discharge the primary onus that was cast upon him for proving the identity of the subject purchases, had placed

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

section 40A. Instead of rejecting the turnover, he proceeded to disallow only the associated financial cost. He disallowed the interest cost in proportion to the purchases with related and unrelated parties. 17.2 However, DRP remitted this issue of disallowance of interest back to the AO to recalculate the interest properly and by following cash flow on day to day basis

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

MUSADDILALS JEWELLERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2)., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafcm 4841 H

28 7. CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj) 8. Prakash Chand Natha Vs. CIT, 301 ITR 134 (MP) 9. CIT Vs. MK Brothers, 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) 10. CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd., 361 ITR 206 (Guj.) 11. CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta, 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 12. Ramlila Pravin

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

28,410/- on sale of shares of M/s. Life Line Drugs & Pharma Ltd., and filed his return of income on 28/03/2016 admitting an income of Rs. 5,21,200/- after claiming exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Learned Assessing Officer on verification, found that the assessee purchased 1,50,000 shares

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/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

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/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

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/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

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/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

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/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

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/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

SURYA PRABHA SUNKAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 68 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) referred to the expression “any sum, which is found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee” and held that the learned Assessing Officer rightly added the amount towards unexplained income. Ld. CIT(A) further rejected the plea taken by the assessee that the learned Assessing Officer made double addition since

SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

28,87,30, 000 and it talks about three companies having amalgamated with AG Ltd. The AO goes on further to state that AG Ltd. has allotted shares to a large number of persons including four Jarmakharchi companies and under the scheme of amalgamation, the swap ratio is so fixed which been raised using Jamah Karchi route indicative that

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

28,000 shares were sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs.41,00,500/- during the months of September to October, 2013. The average price per share works out to Rs.32.03. Learned Assessing Officer received information to the effect that the shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. are found out to be penny stocks consequent to search operations conducted

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

ANITA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

SAJJAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section