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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan-HC); vii. Sonia Goel vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi ITA No.703/2017, Dated. 28.08.2017 of Delhi High Court. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that earlier the case of the assessee was reopened and re- assessment u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s.147

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

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

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

bogus invoices to route funds. 27. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company had recorded the sales made to the aforementioned party, viz. M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd in its books of account, included the same in its turnover, and received the sale consideration through banking channels. Also, it transpires that the assessee company, to substantiate the subject

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

bogus accommodation entries and that in some other matter in course of proceedings before Investigation Wing, one Chartered Accountant had confirmed that he had provided accommodation entry in scrip of Kailash and, consequently, he treated long-term capital gain under section 69 Assessee had duly shown transaction in cheques right from purchase to sale of shares and all transactions

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

bogus accommodation entries and that in some other matter in course of proceedings before Investigation Wing, one Chartered Accountant had confirmed that he had provided accommodation entry in scrip of Kailash and, consequently, he treated long-term capital gain under section 69 Assessee had duly shown transaction in cheques right from purchase to sale of shares and all transactions

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

bogus accommodation entries and that in some other matter in course of proceedings before Investigation Wing, one Chartered Accountant had confirmed that he had provided accommodation entry in scrip of Kailash and, consequently, he treated long-term capital gain under section 69 Assessee had duly shown transaction in cheques right from purchase to sale of shares and all transactions

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

purchases are made by the assessee in good faith and all the bills are given at hand length prices. The said transactions are made in the normal course of the business. As such there are no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on the ground.” 4. The assessee also raised the following additional ground before

SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

purchased shares of MG Ltd. and on its amalgamation, was allotted shares of AG Ltd. in exchange for its existing holding and whose cost of acquisition has been claimed as eligible deduction and net sale consideration has been claimed as exempt as long-term capital gains. (Para 18) The AO has started with the conclusion, that the assessee is involved

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

89 taxmann.com 196) (Hon’ble High Court of Bombay), Smt. Tharakumari in ITA No. 128/2019 & CMP No. 3353/2019 (Hon’ble High Court of Madras); decisions of Co- ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in Suman Poddar in ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, Krishna Devi in ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dated 04/01/2022, M/s. Vidya Reddy in ITA No. 2016/Chny/2017, Pooja Ajmani (106 taxmann.com

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

purchase and at the time of sale, but even after three years from the date of sale of shares, in the year 2015, the shares were quoted in the Stock Exchange at Rs. 134.40 per share. It is, therefore, not a penny stock and the observations made by the learned Assessing Officer are not applicable to the facts

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

bogus\ninvoices to route funds.\n27.\nIt is an undisputed fact that the assessee company had recorded\nthe sales made to the aforementioned party, viz. M/s Lakshin Infradev\nPvt. Ltd in its books of account, included the same in its turnover, and\nreceived the sale consideration through banking channels. Also, it\ntranspires that the assessee company, to substantiate the subject

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made