SANGAM WIRES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

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

LAGUSARI PEDDA SUNAKANNA,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

bogus unless it is proved beyond doubt that no such transaction has really been carried out by causing the proper enquiries. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) also ought to have appreciated that there can be no evidence that can be produced with regard to the family savings and further

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

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 u/s 154 of the Act on 01.02.2020 before

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

bogus when LC numbers and bill\nnumbers were mentioned in the bank account. Coming to the AOs\nspecific observations, it is seen that in the case of Jacon Vietnam\nCompany Limited, the LC invoice value was USD 1,90,000 which\napproximately matches the value in rupees. In the case of\nM/s.R.K.Steel Udyog, the bill and vouchers were available