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

purchase of two villas along with his brother, 50% of the above cash payments, i.e., Rs.35,00,000/ - is considered in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash investment til s 69B..." Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellants did not furnish any explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before

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

purchase of two villas along with his brother, 50% of the above cash payments, i.e., Rs.35,00,000/ - is considered in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash investment til s 69B..." Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellants did not furnish any explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

KASIREDDY SASIKALAMMA,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR

Bench: Us:

purchase is that of an agriculturist land and De information was voluntarily made available by the Appellant himself. (x) The sources for the same are not of the cash savings from agricultural activities as accommodated by the Appellant. Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68-Cash in Hand-Rs. 32,605/- 3 Kasireddy Sasikalamma (x) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has incorrect added