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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

68. read with section 133 of the income-tax Act. 1961 Cash credit (Sundry creditors) Assessment year 2010-11 Assessing Officer issued notice to sundry creditors which could not be served on them He held them as non-existing bogus sundry creditors and made addition to assessee's income Corresponding purchases

SURYA PRABHA SUNKAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

bogus purchases then the profit has to be estimated. In PCIT Vs. M/s.Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.413 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the Revenue has not rejected the instances of purchases by accepting the sales, it was proper to tax the profit embedded in such purchases. In ACIT

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