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

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68

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

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish and- explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before the AO. It is important to note that the firm which was formed in August 2016 could have such sizeable amount of scrap within a year of its operation. The appellant

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish and- explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before the AO. It is important to note that the firm which was formed in August 2016 could have such sizeable amount of scrap within a year of its operation. The appellant

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish and- explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before the AO. It is important to note that the firm which was formed in August 2016 could have such sizeable amount of scrap within a year of its operation. The appellant

MEENA JEWELS AND PEARLS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

68,15,000/- whereas the real value of the transaction as per the said information is Rs.1,10,00,000/- and therefore, the differential amount of Rs.58,15,000/- was proposed to be assessed to tax by the Assessing Officer. In the said information prima facie it appears that the value of purchases made by the assessee was inflated

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

section 68 of the Act. An inquiry report was received from the Income Tax Investigation – Unit New Delhi that M/s Lakshin Infradev Private Limited existed only as a paper entity and was involved in raising bogus invoices to route funds. The name of the assessee appeared in the list of entities having transacted with M/s Lakshin Infradev Private Limited. Appellant

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

purchased for Rs. 1 lakh and when the investments in shares became eligible for long term capital gains, it was sold for Rs. 29 lakhs during the period when the general market trend was recessive. He, thus, opined that such shares matched all the features of companies which were providing bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

purchased for Rs. 1 lakh and when the investments in shares became eligible for long term capital gains, it was sold for Rs. 29 lakhs during the period when the general market trend was recessive. He, thus, opined that such shares matched all the features of companies which were providing bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

Section 68 of the Act, the assessee needs to prove the identity of the investor company, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the investor company. Further, the assessee also needs to prove the source of source of the investor company. Once the assessee proves the identity, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the creditor, then the onus shifts

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

bogus invoices to route funds, the\nauthenticity of sales of cement as stated by the assessee is in\nquestion and hence, the explanation is not satisfactory. Hence, an\namount of Rs.1,29,91,000/- was added u/s 68.\n6.1 The appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove that\nsales receipts from M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt Ltd was genuine.\nAppellant relied

NARESH SAMALA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President)

bogus purchases and expenses may have been booked to avoid impact on the taxable income for the year. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the A.O. towards cash deposits into the bank account during the demonetization period under Section 68

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

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

SRINIVAS SHAH RADRARAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

bogus in nature, which is taxable u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit, without carrying out further enquiries, either by furnishing relevant investigation report and statement of the persons to the assessee for his cross examination and rebuttal. Further, the Assessing Officer had also failed to carry out further enquiry to ascertain the true nature of transactions

SUBHASH KUMAR KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been credited

BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been credited