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

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

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

bogus purchases in its books of accounts. The\nAO, based on his aforesaid observations, which though were explicitly\nrecorded only in context of the aforementioned three entries, however\ndrew adverse inferences with respect to 24 entries mentioned in the\nseized document, viz., Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02 and made an addition\nof Rs.20,35,50,000/- by treating

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that though it was the claim of the assessee that she acquired the jewellery in June, 1998 but had no material to substantiate her said claim except for the statement of her Mother, therefore, the AO had declined to accept the same primarily for the reason that no Wealth Tax returns in support thereof

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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, as prescribed

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

69A of the Act could not have been invoked in as much as the Appellant has recorded the sale of shares and has produced all the evidence in this regard. 6. The finding of the Ld. NFAC that the Appellant did not explain how the shares of Brilliant Securities were converted to Stampede Capital Ltd. and how the appellant purchased

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

69A of the Act could not have been invoked in as much as the Appellant has recorded the sale of shares and has produced all the evidence in this regard. 6. The finding of the Ld. NFAC that the Appellant did not explain how the shares of Brilliant Securities were converted to Stampede Capital Ltd. and how the appellant purchased