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

69,940/- wherein an amount of Rs.2,51,080/- was added as unvouched expenditure. 2.1 Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing, Hyderabad wherein it has been mentioned that during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to A.Y 2008-09, the assessee has shown purchases to the tune of Rs.25,63,834/- from three entities namely Rajendra Kumar Jain

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

bogus story of convenience as already observed that there are various levies on scrap sales and also there has to be reason for generation of scrap, whereas the appellants are just reiterating submissions without giving any justification or evidences, in view of the same, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed. The Assessing Officer has rightly added

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

bogus story of convenience as already observed that there are various levies on scrap sales and also there has to be reason for generation of scrap, whereas the appellants are just reiterating submissions without giving any justification or evidences, in view of the same, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed. The Assessing Officer has rightly added

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

bogus story of convenience as already observed that there are various levies on scrap sales and also there has to be reason for generation of scrap, whereas the appellants are just reiterating submissions without giving any justification or evidences, in view of the same, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed. The Assessing Officer has rightly added

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

bogus. 3.15.2. Erred in making proportionate disallowance of interest without appreciating the fact that the assessee has already offered profit and paid tax on the related purchases which is higher than certain percentage of the above expenditure which could have disallowed. 3.15.3. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the VAT/Service tax obligations have been duly complied with by assessee

PRODDATURI SANJAY KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Proddaturi Sanjay Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Bfbps1905P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Prabhakar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

Section 69 of the Act has no application to a case where the investment is fully recorded and traceable, and there is no finding that the purchase itself was fictitious or bogus

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

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

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus accommodation entries and that in some other matter in course of proceedings before Investigation Wing, one Chartered Accountant had confirmed that he had provided accommodation entries in scrip of Kailash and, consequently, he treated long-term capital gain' under section 69 Assessee had duly shown transaction in cheques right from purchase

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus accommodation entries and that in some other matter in course of proceedings before Investigation Wing, one Chartered Accountant had confirmed that he had provided accommodation entries in scrip of Kailash and, consequently, he treated long-term capital gain' under section 69 Assessee had duly shown transaction in cheques right from purchase

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus accommodation entries and that in some other matter in course of proceedings before Investigation Wing, one Chartered Accountant had confirmed that he had provided accommodation entries in scrip of Kailash and, consequently, he treated long-term capital gain' under section 69 Assessee had duly shown transaction in cheques right from purchase

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

69,59,809/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny\n5\nITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025\nR.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED T\nassessment and notice under section 143(2) of the Act, dated\n11/06/2021 was issued to the assessee company.\n5.\nDuring the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO\nobserved that the assessee company had received Rs. 58,40,75,961/-\nand

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

69,59,809/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny\n5\nITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025\nR.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED T\nassessment and notice under section 143(2) of the Act, dated\n11/06/2021 was issued to the assessee company.\n5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO\nobserved that the assessee company had received Rs. 58,40,75,961/-\nand

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

purchase money was not satisfactory, but in instant case it is impossible for the assessee of such tender age to earn the amount for a decade more. The Tribunal held that section 69 confers only a discretion on the Assessing Officer to deal with investment and it does not make it mandatory to deal w income of the assessee