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 and 69C

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

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

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

purchases which the assessee company had claimed to have made from M/s. Sauve Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, were bogus and, thus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure was treated by him as the income of the assessee company. The AO, based on his aforesaid observations after reducing the profit of Rs. 18,17,636/-, that the assessee company had claimed

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assesee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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 of infrastructure