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

purchase of two villas along with his brother, 50% of the above cash payments, i.e., Rs.35,00,000/ - is considered in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash investment til s 69B..." Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellants did not furnish any explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before

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

purchase of two villas along with his brother, 50% of the above cash payments, i.e., Rs.35,00,000/ - is considered in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash investment til s 69B..." Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellants did not furnish any explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before

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

purchase of two villas along with his brother, 50% of the above cash payments, i.e., Rs.35,00,000/ - is considered in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash investment til s 69B..." Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellants did not furnish any explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

purchase of shares. The assessee has also filed relevant ITRs filed by AGEVIPL along with their financial statements. From the evidences filed by the assessee, we find that the amount of advance paid by the assessee company has been declared in the books of accounts, and the assessee has also filed relevant bank account statements of the investor company

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

unexplained cash credit and their orders should be upheld. In this regard, the learned DR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.220/2019. 12. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities

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

unexplained cash credit and their orders should be upheld. In this regard, the learned DR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.220/2019. 12. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities

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

In the result, Ground Nos

unexplained cash\ncredits, even though the assessee failed to prove the\nidentity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the\ntransaction.\n7. The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting addition of\nRs.12,76,50,000/- made towards disallowance u/s.\n40(a)(ia) even though the assessee failed to remit the\ncorresponding TDS to Govt. Account.\n8. The appellant craves leave to amend

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

unexplained cash\ncredits, even though the assessee failed to prove the\nidentity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the\ntransaction.\n7. The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting addition of\nRs.12,76,50,000/- made towards disallowance u/s.\n40(a)(ia) even though the assessee failed to remit the\ncorresponding TDS to Govt. Account.\n8. The appellant craves leave to amend

NARESH SAMALA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President)

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 4 Naresh Samala 4. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also various facts, observed that, the assessee has failed to explain the source for cash deposits with supporting documentary evidences to corroborate his claim that, the source is out of sale proceeds of liquor

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act. Addition: Rs.1,70,23,768/-.”\n\n8.\nThus, it is clear that it is a case of increase in the\nsundry creditors during the year consideration to the tune of\nRs.1,70,23,768/-. The Assessing Officer proceeded to examine the\nsundry creditors by calling the confirmation and supporting\nevidences regarding the identity

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

unexplained expenditure of Rs.2,42,00,000/-. The Ld. CIT-\nDR further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that\nthe expenditure of Rs.2,42,00,000/- was recorded in the books\nof account ignoring the fact that said amount was sourced out of\nthe amount received from various persons as recorded in the\nseized material

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

unexplained cash credits in its hands, as the same would result in double taxation. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), who had rightly vacated the addition of Rs. 1.29 crore (supra) made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, we uphold the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. AARTHIK GREENTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Greentech Income Tax Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aalca6887D] आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.33/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Infra Projects Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aahca0719N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this amount of share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. SV MULTI LOGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this amount of share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. SV MULTI LOGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this amount of share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

PURUSHOTHAM MUNDADA ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.631/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Aditya Mundada, The Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Vs. Ward – 5, Pan : Bdspm1712R. Warangal. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2243/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Purushotham Mundada The Assistant Commissioner (Huf), Vs. Of Income Tax, Warangal. Circle – 1, Pan : Aahhpoo47D. Hyderabad. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. For this, assessee has raised various grounds numbering 1 to 15, which are exhaustive, argumentative and even reference to case laws and hence, will not reproduce the same. :3: ITA Nos.631 & 2243/Hyd/2018 4. The brief facts are that during the relevant assessment year 2014-15, assessee sold shares of M/s. Kailash Auto

ADITYA MUNDADA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.631/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Aditya Mundada, The Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Vs. Ward – 5, Pan : Bdspm1712R. Warangal. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2243/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Purushotham Mundada The Assistant Commissioner (Huf), Vs. Of Income Tax, Warangal. Circle – 1, Pan : Aahhpoo47D. Hyderabad. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. For this, assessee has raised various grounds numbering 1 to 15, which are exhaustive, argumentative and even reference to case laws and hence, will not reproduce the same. :3: ITA Nos.631 & 2243/Hyd/2018 4. The brief facts are that during the relevant assessment year 2014-15, assessee sold shares of M/s. Kailash Auto

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

credit under section 68\nof the Act.\n28. We, thus, find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), who\nhad rightly held that the recorded sales receipts of the assessee\ncompany could not have been summarily held as unexplained cash\ncredits in its hands, as the same would result in double taxation.\nAccordingly, we find no infirmity

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