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

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

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

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

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

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred by limitation