SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 41(1)\nor 68 of the Act.:-\n\n(i) That the purchase of the hides from the sundry creditors is\nevident from the purchase bills and books of accounts\nmaintained by the appellant. As regards the treatment of the\nsame as bogus

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

purchase of fuel from\nthe aforesaid party and had received the amount as mentioned in the\nnoting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, therefore, are unable to\nconcur with the CIT(A) who had upheld the impugned unsubstantiated\naddition made by the AO only for the reason that there was a similarity\nin the names of the parties mentioned

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

purchase of fuel from\nthe aforesaid party and had received the amount as mentioned in the\nnoting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, therefore, are unable to\nconcur with the CIT(A) who had upheld the impugned unsubstantiated\naddition made by the AO only for the reason that there was a similarity\nin the names of the parties mentioned

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

41,00,500/- at 20 times the purchase price to derive the capital gains of Rs. 39,00,500/-. Admittedly, assessee is not a professional in dealing in shares. According to the learned DR, if the assessee derived such disproportionately high profits in the maiden transaction, it would be but natural for the assessee to do similar transaction subsequently also

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

purchases which the assessee company had claimed to have made from M/s. Sauve Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, were bogus and, thus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure was treated by him as the income of the assessee company. The AO, based on his aforesaid observations after reducing the profit of Rs. 18,17,636/-, that the assessee company had claimed

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

purchased shares of MG Ltd. and on its amalgamation, was allotted shares of AG Ltd. in exchange for its existing holding and whose cost of acquisition has been claimed as eligible deduction and net sale consideration has been claimed as exempt as long-term capital gains. (Para 18) The AO has started with the conclusion, that the assessee is involved

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

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

bogus, it should be added to income from cement unit or power unit accordingly, instead of attributing them to 801A deduction. Hence it is held that 1% disallowance of total expenses of the company from deduction u/s 80IA is unwarranted. As a result, ground no 4 is allowed. 6. Ground No.5 is raised against disallowance U/s 80IA to the tune

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

bogus\ninvoices to route funds.\n27.\nIt is an undisputed fact that the assessee company had recorded\nthe sales made to the aforementioned party, viz. M/s Lakshin Infradev\nPvt. Ltd in its books of account, included the same in its turnover, and\nreceived the sale consideration through banking channels. Also, it\ntranspires that the assessee company, to substantiate the subject

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

bogus. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue are incorrect. 11. The ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,41,87,239/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 12. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.18,47,25,000 made

SHAILAJA KUNCHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailaja Kunchala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cfkpk9703B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav – Cit-Dr (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2024

section 282, particularly w.r.t. the businesses carried by Assessees in unorganised sector and thus a notice by registered post or a service through inspector ought to have been made before passing an Ex-parte order. 4. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)-NFAC erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs. 16,41 ,58,541/- made by the Assessing Officer referable

SEEMA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1112/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Seema Jain Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Afnpj4732N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading In Jewellery & Also Job Work For Her Customers, Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 12.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,09,720/- The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax

41,55,960/- by making addition to the tune of Rs.3,30,90,993/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money towards cash deposit and also disallowance of certain expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.13,04,987/-. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order on 13.01.2020 and the appeal filed by the assessee has not been disposed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. 13 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs." 6.3.1. Applying the judgment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. 13 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs." 6.3.1. Applying the judgment