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

35 taxmann.com 384/216 Taxman 471 (Mag.)/[2015] 372 ITR 0619 (Bom) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchase. The assessee had filed letter of confirmation of seven suppliers, copies of bank statement reflecting the entries of payment through account payee cheques to suppliers, copies of invoices for purchase and detail of stock inventory. The sales

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

section 68 of the Act. An inquiry report was received from the Income Tax Investigation – Unit New Delhi that M/s Lakshin Infradev Private Limited existed only as a paper entity and was involved in raising bogus invoices to route funds. The name of the assessee appeared in the list of entities having transacted with M/s Lakshin Infradev Private Limited. Appellant

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

section 68 of the Act. An inquiry report was received from the Income Tax Investigation – Unit New Delhi that M/s Lakshin Infradev Private Limited existed only as a paper entity and was involved in raising bogus invoices to route funds. The name of the assessee appeared in the list of entities having transacted with M/s Lakshin Infradev Private Limited. Appellant

SUNITA DEVI,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

SAJJANRAJ JAIN & WIFE (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

PREMLATA,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

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

SUNITA DEVI,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

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.235/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. R.K. Infracorp Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri M V Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: | Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr (Hybrid Mode) आ.अपी. सं/Ita No.363/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. R.K. Infracorp Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Appellant) Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M V Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 25/02/2026 Pronouncement: 2

35,50,000/-representing the cash received back from purchasers." Apart from that, the assessee company has raised the following additional ground of appeal: "Ground No.5: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified to holding that the assessment completed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) was made within the time

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.235/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. R.K. Infracorp Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri M V Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr (Hybrid Mode) आ.अपी. सं/Ita No.363/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. R.K. Infracorp Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Respondent) Shri M V Prasad, Ca Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 25/02/2026 Pronouncement: 2

35,50,000/-representing the cash received back from purchasers." Apart from that, the assessee company has raised the following additional ground of appeal: "Ground No.5: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified to holding that the assessment completed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) was made within the time

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted cash investment addition

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted cash investment addition

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted cash investment addition

THOTA RAMAIAH L/R T VASUNDHARA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchasing the movie rights have been considered by the revenue authority with respect to the other transaction namely, for the other part of the amount which was paid through the banking channel for an amount of Rs.2,11,00,000/-, then the transaction cannot be doubted by the revenue authorities. In our view, once the transaction has not been doubted

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.14,82,635/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38l and taxed the same as per provisions of Section 115BBE at 30% without giving benefit of slabs. Going into facts of the case

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

purchase transactions and cash received on sale of lands, etc to the tune of Rs.6,08,84,018/- for the AY: 2015-16. 2.2 Further, as the AO upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case decided that the present case is 'a fit case' for issuance of notice u/s 148 of 1.T.Act, as per clause (i) of explanation

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.:

35,085/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28/03/2015 wherein the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 4,42,69,513/- invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act because the assessee could not establish the genuineness of its sundry creditors. On appeal Ld.CIT