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

bogus purchases would give a completely distorted figure and held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% while also agreeing with decision of the Ld. CIT(A) & the Tribunal with regard to disclosure of Rs 61.05 lakhs. The details of purchases made

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

37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule SD of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part

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

Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12. So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there

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

Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12. So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there

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

Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12. So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there

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

Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12. So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there

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

Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12. So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there

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

Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12. So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there

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

Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. 12. So far as reliance place by the revenue in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a proceeding under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and it was held that there

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

37 ITR 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

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

37(1) of the Act.\nThe company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the\ndonation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief\nFund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with section 80G(1)(i) of the Act.\nThe company claim deduction to the extent of fifty percent of the\ndonation of Rs. 1 crores paid

VENKATARAMA SATYA SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY RAJU SAGI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.788/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi, Hyderabad. Pan:Athps0867M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram & Shri P. Vinod, Advocates रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 30.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

bogus purchases of Rs.13,58,94,043/- under section 37 of the Act and completed the reassessment under section 147 read

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

37,54,568/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO made an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 74,59,428/- in the hands of the assessee U/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On appeal, The Ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., 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

37,54,568/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO made an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 74,59,428/- in the hands of the assessee U/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On appeal, The Ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the assessee

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

37,54,568/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO made an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 74,59,428/- in the hands of the assessee U/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On appeal, The Ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the assessee

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

37,54,568/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO made an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 74,59,428/- in the hands of the assessee U/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On appeal, The Ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the assessee

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

37,54,568/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO made an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 74,59,428/- in the hands of the assessee U/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On appeal, The Ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the assessee

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

37,54,568/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO made an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 74,59,428/- in the hands of the assessee U/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On appeal, The Ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the assessee