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

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

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

S.P.Y AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus purchases and the addition\nhas been restricted to 8% of Rs.23,31,50,007/- by Ld. CIT(A).\n5. With regard to the first issue, the Ld. DR submitted that, during\nthe year under consideration, there was an increase in share capital by\nRs.4,56,47,500/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO called for the explanation\nfrom the assessee

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. S.P.Y AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus purchases and the addition\nhas been restricted to 8% of Rs.23,31,50,007/- by Ld. CIT(A).\n5. With regard to the first issue, the Ld. DR submitted that, during\nthe year under consideration, there was an increase in share capital by\nRs.4,56,47,500/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO called for the explanation\nfrom the assessee

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

purchases are made by the assessee in good faith and all the bills are given at hand length prices. The said transactions are made in the normal course of the business. As such there are no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on the ground.” 4. The assessee also raised the following additional ground before

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 purchase and sale of shares, whereas all documentary evidences are clearly showing that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 10(38). In this connection your kind attention is drawn to CBDT circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.4.1955, it was directed that the officials of the department obliged to advise the assessee and guide

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

section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company. 48. Ostensibly, the AO had disallowed the claim for deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company, on the ground that CSR expenditure is mandatory and hence donations made therefrom cannot be regarded as voluntary. 49. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals

DEEPAK NAGORI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

bogus entries of LTCG amounting to several crores from 2010 to 2014. ii. The result of the enquiry was also shared with SEBI and the SEBI after investigating 11 cases have found the allegation to be correct. The remaining cases are still being investigated by SEBI. iii. TOP 25 groups under each investigation directorate of the country were confronted

PRIYA DARSHINI KIMTEE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

bogus LTCTG for a commission. Page 7 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed the following facts: Page 8 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 13. Finally, the Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions were sham transactions

RAVINDRA KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

bogus LTCTG for a commission. Page 7 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed the following facts: Page 8 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 13. Finally, the Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions were sham transactions

TULSIDEVI AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

bogus LTCTG for a commission. Page 7 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed the following facts: Page 8 of 30 ITA Nos 1707, 901 and 1706 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and others 13. Finally, the Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions were sham transactions

NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

bogus transactions and aimed only to bring unaccounted money in the guise of exempted long term capital gain and paper work has been done merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transaction and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. Thus, the transactions made with these paper companies were treated as fictitious and the amount of Rs.8

SUMEET KUMAR AGARWAL ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

bogus transactions and aimed only to bring unaccounted money in the guise of exempted long term capital gain and paper work has been done merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transaction and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. Thus, the transactions made with these paper companies were treated as fictitious and the amount of Rs.8

SAROJ AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

bogus transactions and aimed only to bring unaccounted money in the guise of exempted long term capital gain and paper work has been done merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transaction and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. Thus, the transactions made with these paper companies were treated as fictitious and the amount of Rs.8

VIKAS KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

bogus transactions and aimed only to bring unaccounted money in the guise of exempted long term capital gain and paper work has been done merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transaction and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. Thus, the transactions made with these paper companies were treated as fictitious and the amount of Rs.8