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

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

bogus purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

bogus purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

AMARAVATI,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961('the Act') were not satisfied and therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT (A) upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid is erroneous, invalid and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings and recording of reasons emanated from the report of the Investigation wing

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

bogus purchases would give a completely distorted figure and held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% while also agreeing with decision of the Ld. CIT(A) & the Tribunal with regard to disclosure of Rs 61.05 lakhs. The details of purchases made

BASANTH LAL SAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

8. The Ld. CIT(A), without independent verification into the facts of the case, erred in aligning with the contentions/observations of the AO which were in turn based on inferences driven by suspicion, assumptions, conjectures and surmises. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions alleging bogus purchases solely on the grounds that the creditors did not respond

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

8% on the alleged bogus purchases. 9.The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds as the occasion may require. 10.For these and other grounds that will be submitted at the time of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the reopening of assessment may be cancelled as illegal and the addition of Rs.9

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

8% on the alleged bogus purchases. 9.The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds as the occasion may require. 10.For these and other grounds that will be submitted at the time of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the reopening of assessment may be cancelled as illegal and the addition of Rs.9

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY (SICNE DISSOLVE), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

8% on the alleged bogus purchases. 9.The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds as the occasion may require. 10.For these and other grounds that will be submitted at the time of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the reopening of assessment may be cancelled as illegal and the addition of Rs.9

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nthe A

8. 1. Hon'ble court also held that merely because the\nsuppliers had not appeared before the Assessing\n9\nITA No.980/Hyd/2024,1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024\nRohini Minerals Private Limited\nOfficer or CIT (Appeals), it could not be concluded that\nthe purchases were not made and the addition made\nwas deleted.\n6. 9. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal

MEENA JEWELS AND PEARLS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

8. Thus, an identical issue of addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the statement of Sri Rajendra Jain in respect of the purchases made from KIPL was found to be not sustainable by the Chandigarh Benches of the Tribunal which also supports the case of the assessee on merits. Further, the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal

MUSADDILALS JEWELLERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2)., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafcm 4841 H

section 131 of the Act, the evidence of R could not have been used against the assessee and in the absence of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard by summoning the said witness the assessment order was vitiated. 7.4 We are of the view that the AO failed to establish that the assessee has made bogus purchases by bringing

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

8. The appellant contends that the jewellery purchased from Kangan Jewels Pvt Ltd of Rs. 42,18,510/- is genuine and both the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the purchases and in making the addition. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to amend or alter any of the above grounds as the occasion may require