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

41,68,29,478/- 4 Vedika Steels Pvt. Ltd. - 5 United Minerals Pvt. Ltd. - Total purchases (related 377,64,15,403/- concerns) Other purchases (unrelated 102,92,43,281/- concerns) Total purchases debited to P&L 480,56,58,684/-. A/c Thus the disallowance of interest was worked out by the AO as under: Disallowance

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

purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses, as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in the group cases. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in not following the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs DCIT 346 ITR 106, wherein it has held that

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

purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses, as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in the group cases. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in not following the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs DCIT 346 ITR 106, wherein it has held that

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

purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses, as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in the group cases. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in not following the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs DCIT 346 ITR 106, wherein it has held that

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

purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses, as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in the group cases. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in not following the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs DCIT 346 ITR 106, wherein it has held that

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

purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses, as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in the group cases. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in not following the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs DCIT 346 ITR 106, wherein it has held that

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

purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses, as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in the group cases. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in not following the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs DCIT 346 ITR 106, wherein it has held 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

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,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

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

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