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

purchasers.\n4. The Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming an\namount of Rs.30,00,000/- alleged to have received back from\n\"Cement Shop Dwaraka RRR out of the total addition made\nRs.20,35,50,000/-representing the cash received back from\npurchasers.\"\nApart from that, the assessee company has raised the following\nadditional ground of appeal

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

purchasers.\n4. The Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming an\namount of Rs.30,00,000/- alleged to have received back from\n\"Cement Shop Dwaraka RRR out of the total addition made\nRs.20,35,50,000/-representing the cash received back from\npurchasers.\"\nApart from that, the assessee company has raised the following\nadditional ground of appeal

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3 K & R Rail Engineering Limited

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as ‘un-accounted income’; and it is for the assessee to establish creditworthiness of companies and that rise of price of shares within a short period of time was genuine, genuineness could not be established merely on basis of documents

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as ‘un-accounted income’; and it is for the assessee to establish creditworthiness of companies and that rise of price of shares within a short period of time was genuine, genuineness could not be established merely on basis of documents

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company. 48. Ostensibly, the AO had disallowed the claim for deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company, on the ground that CSR expenditure is mandatory and hence donations made therefrom cannot be regarded as voluntary. 49. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 37 of\nthe Act and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs.\n2,42,00,000/-.\n16. Aggrieved, by the order of Ld. CIT(A), now the revenue is in\nappeal before the Tribunal.\n17. The Ld. CIT-DR Ms. U. Mini Chandran, submitted that the\nLd. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards\nunexplained expenditure without appreciating

VISHAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

bogus purchase and sale of shares, whereas all documentary evidences are clearly showing that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 10(38). In this connection your kind attention is drawn to CBDT circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.4.1955, it was directed that the officials of the department obliged to advise the assessee and guide

LAGUSARI PEDDA SUNAKANNA,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

bogus unless it is proved beyond doubt that no such transaction has really been carried out by causing the proper enquiries. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) also ought to have appreciated that there can be no evidence that can be produced with regard to the family savings and further

KANISHK GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.34/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus claim of LTCG u/s 10(38). Subsequently, the case "was centralised and accordingly the notice u/s 153A was issued to the appellant following due procedure as the search was conducted on the appellant. Further, it is also to be noted that there is no prejudice caused to the appellant on account of pursuing only assessment proceedings u/s 153A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

70,29,532/- for the assessment year 2013- 2014. Further, the assessee has also submitted the details 8 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 of machinery purchased from M/s. Pradeep Kumar Babulal & Co. along with all the copies of invoices. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee observed that as the genuineness

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

70,29,532/- for the assessment year 2013- 2014. Further, the assessee has also submitted the details 8 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 of machinery purchased from M/s. Pradeep Kumar Babulal & Co. along with all the copies of invoices. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee observed that as the genuineness

VISWANADH KANDULA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

purchase or acquisition of any asset. Therefore, the business transactions of sale of scrap or commission income etc, as well as the expenditure incurred in relation to the business activity would not constitute of an asset in terms of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. It is also a matter of fact and record that these transactions as found

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation with- regard to the same has been filed. The appellant- claims that it was an agent and an aggregator and therefore the payment