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

Loss account and claimed as a deduction in computing the profits of the business chargeable to tax, the onus was on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the purchases with satisfactory evidences. I find that the primary onus that was casted on the appellant has been discharged by it by filing the required documents before the AO (in form

REEMA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

purchased\nand held for more than 12 months and transferred thereafter\nat an exorbitant price to convert the same into tax exemption\nlong term capital gains u/sec.10(38) of the Act. The shares of\nShree Shaleen Textiles Ltd., and SRK Industries Limited were\nselected by the assessee for the purpose of creating bogus\nbusiness loss and set

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

Loss account and claimed as a deduction\nin computing the profits of the business chargeable to\ntax, the onus was on the appellant to prove the\ngenuneness of the purchases with satisfactory\nevidences. I find that the primary onus that was casted\non the appellant has been discharged by it by filing the\nrequired documents before the AO (in form

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

losses under normal provisions and\nincome Rs.17,65,99,000/- as per provisions of sec.115JB of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure operation was\nconducted in the case of the assessee company on 12.10.2018.\nDuring the course of search in the office premises of assessee\nemail sent by Sri Mastan Naidu were found and seized vide\nAnnexure

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDRABAD vs. KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

purchase and sale is not with the\nsame party, then, it cannot be said to be a reversal trade for\nnon-genuine or bogus profit or loss. It is also pertinent to note\n\n23\nITA.No.1077/Hyd./2025\nthat the profit of Rs.1,49,86,825/- is duly reported by the\nassessee at the time of filing the original return

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

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

SRINIVAS SHAH RADRARAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , 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.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

purchase and sale of above shares is bogus in nature. Take an example, there may be a group of people who are in collusion with each other may have traded a particular share to jack the share price artificially in the stock market, but a common investor in stock market by watching the moment of share price of particular share

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

loss and the appellants are trying in vain to create the same cash as part of business receipts to escape the taxation as well as the provisions of Section 115BBE which puts higher quantum of tax on unaccounted cash. Just because the appellants, in their firm MOs Supreme Agro, have passed an entry in the firm's books

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

loss and the appellants are trying in vain to create the same cash as part of business receipts to escape the taxation as well as the provisions of Section 115BBE which puts higher quantum of tax on unaccounted cash. Just because the appellants, in their firm MOs Supreme Agro, have passed an entry in the firm's books

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

loss and the appellants are trying in vain to create the same cash as part of business receipts to escape the taxation as well as the provisions of Section 115BBE which puts higher quantum of tax on unaccounted cash. Just because the appellants, in their firm MOs Supreme Agro, have passed an entry in the firm's books

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.

set off LTCG earned on sale of property in Vizianagaram. h) Another Director in M/s Kyori Oremin namely Sh. SS Rudraraju had also indulged in bogus share transactions in shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engg. and shown bogus LTCG of Rs. 2,29,74,224/-. i) Appellant admitted that commission @ 1% was paid to earn such bogus accommodation entries

APR JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANATHAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.456/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Apr Jewellers (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aalca3233D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri, M. Bhupal Gowd, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/02/2025 आदेश/Order

bogus. We further note that the learned CIT (A) has given much emphasis on typographical mistake in the statement of turnover for the month of November, 2016 where the assessee has claimed that the entire sale was cash sales, however, there was a typographical mistake in showing the cash sales of October, 2016 showing the same figure of cash sales

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

loss. Learned Assessing Officer was conscious of the facts of SEBI conducting enquiries and identifying some of the issues of the manipulations of share market with the inputs given by their own surveillance system and also by the Income Tax Department. In the light of this knowledge in the public domain, the learned Assessing Officer entertained a reasonable doubt

SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

loss\naccount. Therefore, the High Court answered the substantial\nquestion of law in the negative and in favour of the\nassessee. The facts of the present case are similar those of the\ncase of Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (supra). Therefore, it is\nabundantly clear that the provision of sec. 41(21) (a) are not\napplicable. No addition could be made

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

set off a capital loss of Rs. 6,167.47 from the sale of Reliance Power Ltd shares, calculating a net LTCG of Rs. 36,76,913, which was fully claimed as exempt. Assessee invested in M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited by purchasing 1,00,000 shares at Rs.1/- per share in 2012. These shares were sold in 2013 on multiple

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

set off a capital loss of Rs. 6,167.47 from the sale of Reliance Power Ltd shares, calculating a net LTCG of Rs. 36,76,913, which was fully claimed as exempt. Assessee invested in M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited by purchasing 1,00,000 shares at Rs.1/- per share in 2012. These shares were sold in 2013 on multiple

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

purchase of the shares and subsequently sold the shares well after the period of 12 months. It is only when the assessees, substantially in large numbers, made fanciful claims of LTCG, time had come to examine its genuinity of such claims. While on this issue, it would be relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

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

purchase and sale of above Page 22 of 33 ITA 707 & 405 of 2020 Subhash Kumar Kedia & Other shares is bogus in nature. Take an example, there may be a group of people who are in collusion with each other may have traded a particular share to jack the share price artificially in the stock market, but a common investor