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

capital gain as bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. LINGIAH AMIDYALA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gain.” 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of assessee. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein above. 5. Firstly, Ld. DR had drawn our attention

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

292C of the Act, as per which the seized document, viz., Page 38 of Annexure A/JRFM/05 was to be presumed to be belonging to either Shri. Surender Jindal (supra) i.e. the owner of the laptop or M/s Jitender Roller Flour Mills, i.e. the searched concern in whose premises the laptop was found lying in the course of the search proceedings

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

292C of the Act, as per which the seized document, viz., Page 38 of Annexure A/JRFM/05 was to be presumed to be belonging to either Shri. Surender Jindal (supra) i.e. the owner of the laptop or M/s Jitender Roller Flour Mills, i.e. the searched concern in whose premises the laptop was found lying in the course of the search proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. P SHIVMOHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains”. 17. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that section 132(4) statement which was subsequently retracted has no evidentiary value unless backed by corroborative evidence. He again reiterated that the so-called statement was forcefully Page 10 of 16 ITA Nos 60 and 61 P Shivmohan Reddy Hyderabad recorded from the assessee and the so called piece

OCEAN PARK MULTITECH LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148/147 proceedings. Rejected accordingly. 3. We next advert to the assessee’s latter substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing its repair and maintenance expenditure claim of Rs.21.09 lakhs to the extent of 20% coming to Rs.4,21,800/- allegedly due to lack of sufficient cogent evidence. Needless to say, the very factual position

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. OCEAN PARK MULTITECH LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148/147 proceedings. Rejected accordingly. 3. We next advert to the assessee’s latter substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing its repair and maintenance expenditure claim of Rs.21.09 lakhs to the extent of 20% coming to Rs.4,21,800/- allegedly due to lack of sufficient cogent evidence. Needless to say, the very factual position

OCEAN PARK MULTITECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148/147 proceedings. Rejected accordingly. 3. We next advert to the assessee’s latter substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing its repair and maintenance expenditure claim of Rs.21.09 lakhs to the extent of 20% coming to Rs.4,21,800/- allegedly due to lack of sufficient cogent evidence. Needless to say, the very factual position

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

capital gains purposes and also treated the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity assessment order on merits. During the appeal hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Ld.AR also argued that initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, without having

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

capital gains purposes and also treated the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity assessment order on merits. During the appeal hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Ld.AR also argued that initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, without having

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

capital gains purposes and also treated the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity assessment order on merits. During the appeal hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Ld.AR also argued that initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, without having

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

capital gains purposes and also treated the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity assessment order on merits. During the appeal hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Ld.AR also argued that initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, without having

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

capital gains purposes and also treated the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity assessment order on merits. During the appeal hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Ld.AR also argued that initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, without having

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

capital gains purposes and also treated the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity assessment order on merits. During the appeal hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Ld.AR also argued that initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, without having

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

capital gains purposes and also treated the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity assessment order on merits. During the appeal hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Ld.AR also argued that initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, without having

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. G CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 292C of the Act. 8. Per contra, ld. AR had submitted that in the present case, the agreement of sale dt.21.11.2018, MOU dt.10.01.2019 and the sale deed dt.10.01.2019 clearly show that one Neelima was the owner of the property as she had sold agricultural land along with the assessee and others, as consenting parties, and received

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. G CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 292C of the Act. 8. Per contra, ld. AR had submitted that in the present case, the agreement of sale dt.21.11.2018, MOU dt.10.01.2019 and the sale deed dt.10.01.2019 clearly show that one Neelima was the owner of the property as she had sold agricultural land along with the assessee and others, as consenting parties, and received

SKILL PROMOTERS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 628/Hyd/2022 Skill Promoters, Acit, Central Circle 2014-15 Hyderabad 2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aayfs9165Q 686/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Skill Promoters, 2014-15 2(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aayfs9165Q 629/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 687/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 630/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 677/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Skill Promoters (P) 2016-17 2(3) Hyderabad Ltd, Hyderabad Pan:Aawcs1257Q 688/Hyd/2022 -Do- Skill Promoters, 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aayfs9165Q 622/Hyd/2022 Skill Promoters Pvt Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Ltd, Hyderabad 2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aawcs1257Q 678/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 623/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 679/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 624/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 680/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Skill Promoters Pvt 2019-20 2(3) Hyderabad Ltd, Hyderabad Pan:Aawcs1257Q 625/Hyd/2022 Skill Promoters Pvt Acit, Central Circle 2019-20 Ltd, Hyderabad 2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aawcs1257Q 681/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Skill Promoters Pvt 2020-21 2(3) Hyderabad Ltd, Hyderabad Pan:Aawcs1257Q 626/Hyd/2022 Skill Promoters Pvt Acit, Central Circle 2020-21 Ltd, Hyderabad 2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aawcs1257Q

Capital Mall. It was also mentioned in the statement that they have reconciled the above figures and have arrived at actual receipts towards sale of commercial space to the extent of Rs.357.05 crores which includes cash receipts of Rs.112.41 crores. Accordingly, Shri Mohd Aslam filed an affidavit dated 20-12-2019 wherein he has disclosed Rs.42.45 crores