BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condonation of delay before the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled proposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words, in case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condonation of delay before the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled proposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words, in case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condonation of delay before the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled proposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words, in case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condonation of delay before the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled proposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words, in case

DINESH DAGA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

68,184/ on the ground that the sale consideration received on sale of penny stock scrip of VMS Industries Liinited represents income from other sources. While coming to such conclusion, the Assessing officer did not consider the fact that the trading done was only speculation and the actual amount received was only Rs.43,832/- and that the entire sale consideration

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee, assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 admitting total income of Rs. 37,38,670/-. On credible information that assessee and one Chetan Agarwal are regularly conducting dabba trading

NIRAJITA MITRA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 270AA of the Act, it is clear that nowhere it is mentioned that in case the assessee filed Form 68 after a period of 30 days, then the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) was not empowered to condone the delay

SHREEJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shreeji Foods Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aalcs2695H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

condonation of delay cannot be granted in this case. 6.3 In view of the overall discussion, the appeal is dismissed being not maintainable.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld.AR submitted that Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition under section 68

VISHAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vishal Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aympj0559M. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 30.08.2019 admitting total income of Rs.13,51,680/-. The Investigating Team found cash of Rs.11,83,000/- in possession of assessee

METAL INDUSTRIES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Metal Industries, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-44, Industrial Estate, Ward – 6(3), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Telangana. Pan : Aawfm8494Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2024

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4 3.1 Further, in the absence of any information with respect unsecured loan credits for the closing balances mentioned at Rs.22,23,935/- and Rs.53,50,000/- as on 31.03.2017, totaling to Rs.85,34,105/- was also considered by the Assessing Officer for addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, Assessing

GANGAMAGROTECH,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Firm and had not filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2013-2014. As per the Insight portal of the Department, a search and seizure operation

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,78,721/-\nresulting in an addition of Rs.48,43,936/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nchallenging the consequential assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s.263 dated 29.03.2006.\n5.\nWhile both the above-mentioned appeals were pending before the Ld.\nCIT(A), the Ld. AO reopened

QADEER AHMED MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 26.09.2022.5. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee 4 Qadeer Ahmed Mohammed admitted that, there was a delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY ,HYDERABAD , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Income Tax (Osd), Hyderabad Circle-5(1) / [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Vs [Erstwhile Circle-16(1)] [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर / Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.N. Murthy, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Challenging The Order(S) Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Cit(A)”) In The Case Of Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy (“The Assessee”) For

condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. Two additions are in question in this appeal. One is in respect of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,53,000/- under section 69A of the Act and the other is Rs. 2.35 crores under section 68