RAM GOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

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

bogus purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

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

bogus purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

AMARAVATI,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

bogus under a separate head. The CIT(A) therefore has rightly held it to be an instance of the double addition apart from all other factual and legal aspects. We therefore find no merit in the Revenue's instant former substantive grievance in all these appeals in view of the foregoing clinching reason(s). This identical former substantive ground

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

bogus under a separate head. The CIT(A) therefore has rightly held it to be an instance of the double addition apart from all other factual and legal aspects. We therefore find no merit in the Revenue's instant former substantive grievance in all these appeals in view of the foregoing clinching reason(s). This identical former substantive ground

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

bogus under a separate head. The CIT(A) therefore has rightly held it to be an instance of the double addition apart from all other factual and legal aspects. We therefore find no merit in the Revenue's instant former substantive grievance in all these appeals in view of the foregoing clinching reason(s). This identical former substantive ground

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

Bench: Us :

4. The A.O. in order to verify the veracity of the aforesaid purchase transactions, issued notices under Section 133(6) of the Act to the aforementioned parties. However, neither of the subject parties responded to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. The A.O. further observed that the aforementioned persons had not filed their return of income

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

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

Section 148 and 147 mechanism culminating in the impugned bogus purchases disallowances affirmed upto the CIT(A)’s order(s) under challenge. 5. Learned counsel’s first and foremost vehement contention seeks to quash the impugned reopening without recording the reasons based on tangible material which could even indicate assessee’s taxable income to have declared assessment. We find

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

Section 148 and 147 mechanism culminating in the impugned bogus purchases disallowances affirmed upto the CIT(A)’s order(s) under challenge. 5. Learned counsel’s first and foremost vehement contention seeks to quash the impugned reopening without recording the reasons based on tangible material which could even indicate assessee’s taxable income to have declared assessment. We find

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

Section 148 and 147 mechanism culminating in the impugned bogus purchases disallowances affirmed upto the CIT(A)’s order(s) under challenge. 5. Learned counsel’s first and foremost vehement contention seeks to quash the impugned reopening without recording the reasons based on tangible material which could even indicate assessee’s taxable income to have declared assessment. We find

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

4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of an amount of Rs.24,94,00,000 by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter "the Act"), failing to appreciate that the Appellant had not debited the same in its books of account, and at any rate such amount