INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD, KONDAPUR HYDERABAD vs. SANGAM WIRES, KALABURAGI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.356/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sangam Wires Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1 Pan:Acnfs5309K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sangam Wires Ward 11(1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acnfs5309K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/Order

money to the assessee is not supported by the facts and it is also against the common business practice/prudence. 5. To ascertain the veracity of the facts related to the case and genuineness of the transaction(s) through independent enquiry, he issued notice(s) u/s 133(6) of the Act to Pashupati Steels India & Rudhra Impex. However, no compliance were

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)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has rightly computed Long Term Capital Gains from sale of shares and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, after considering the holding period of shares. Learned counsel for the assessee referring to various documents, including purchase documents and submitted that the assessee had purchased

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)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has rightly computed Long Term Capital Gains from sale of shares and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, after considering the holding period of shares. Learned counsel for the assessee referring to various documents, including purchase documents and submitted that the assessee had purchased

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)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has rightly computed Long Term Capital Gains from sale of shares and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, after considering the holding period of shares. Learned counsel for the assessee referring to various documents, including purchase documents and submitted that the assessee had purchased

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)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has rightly computed Long Term Capital Gains from sale of shares and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, after considering the holding period of shares. Learned counsel for the assessee referring to various documents, including purchase documents and submitted that the assessee had purchased

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

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

SUSHMASRI BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.57 & 58/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Smt. Sushmasri Boppana Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Akvpb6106D Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

unexplained investment towards on-money payment for purchase of property. 18. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that during the course of search, agreement of sale dated 07/11/2015 was found at the premise of Varsity Education

SUSHMASRI BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.57 & 58/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Smt. Sushmasri Boppana Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Akvpb6106D Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

unexplained investment towards on-money payment for purchase of property. 18. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that during the course of search, agreement of sale dated 07/11/2015 was found at the premise of Varsity Education

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

unexplained shareholders the assessee relying on the AP HC decision in the case of Lanco Industries Ltd. 242 ITR 357 held that amount invested has to be considered in the hands of shareholder himself. Assessee also relied upon the SC decision in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. The CIT(A) held, that assessee is not carrying

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

purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long-term capital gain. 8.9. It is also brought on record for your kind reference that SEBI vide its order dated 21st September 2017 has revoked

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

purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long-term capital gain. 8.9. It is also brought on record for your kind reference that SEBI vide its order dated 21st September 2017 has revoked

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

purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long-term capital gain. 8.9. It is also brought on record for your kind reference that SEBI vide its order dated 21st September 2017 has revoked

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

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

S.P.Y AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

unexplained share capital and\n(ii) Rs.23,31,50,007/- on account of bogus purchases.\n2.1 Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of\nthe assessee.\n2.2 Aggrieved with order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue and the\nassessee are in appeal

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. S.P.Y AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

unexplained share capital and\n(ii) Rs.23,31,50,007/- on account of bogus purchases.\n2.1 Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of\nthe assessee.\n2.2 Aggrieved with order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue and the\nassessee are in appeal

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that though it was the claim of the assessee that she acquired the jewellery in June, 1998 but had no material to substantiate her said claim except for the statement of her Mother, therefore, the AO had declined to accept the same primarily for the reason that no Wealth Tax returns in support thereof