EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

bogus.\n5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be\nurged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee\ncompany filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on\n12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

bogus.\n5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be\nurged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee\ncompany filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on\n12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The\ncase was selected

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

bogus, it should be added to income from cement unit or power unit accordingly, instead of attributing them to 801A deduction. Hence it is held that 1% disallowance of total expenses of the company from deduction u/s 80IA is unwarranted. As a result, ground no 4 is allowed. 6. Ground No.5 is raised against disallowance U/s 80IA to the tune

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

bogus, it should be added to\nincome from cement unit or power unit accordingly, instead of\nattributing them to 801A deduction. Hence it is held that 1%\ndisallowance of total expenses of the company from deduction u/s\n80IA is unwarranted. As a result, ground no 4 is allowed.\n6. Ground No.5 is raised against disallowance U/s 80IA to the tune

SUBHASH KUMAR KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been credited

BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been credited

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.

90,843/- respectively. Thus, during the financial year relevant to A.Y 2014-15 the assessee has earned Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,40,51,466/-on sale of equity shares of 2 companies and claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. During the course of survey, a statement on oath

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

bogus. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue are incorrect. 11. The ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,41,87,239/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 12. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.18,47,25,000 made

SEEMA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1112/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Seema Jain Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Afnpj4732N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading In Jewellery & Also Job Work For Her Customers, Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 12.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,09,720/- The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax

90,993/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money towards cash deposit and also disallowance of certain expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.13,04,987/-. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order on 13.01.2020 and the appeal filed by the assessee has not been disposed off by the first appellate authority. Meanwhile, the assessee has filed petition

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

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. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

90,201/- made by the Assessing Officer\ntowards disallowance on account of purchases, after considering\nthe payments for LCs which were made through banking\nchannel and supporting way bills. The learned CIT(A) has also\ndeleted the addition of Rs.9,71,21,390/- towards payment made\nfor LCs as they were matched with the bank statement. Further,\nthe learned

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

DEEPAK NAGORI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

90,000/-. In his bank account there would be a cheque deposit of Rs 50,00,000/- paid by the paper company that buys the shares. The receipt is prima facie exempt from tax under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from