RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

income in the status of HUF and Sri G.\nRajendra Reddy being has Karta of the HUF. The income\nreturned in the earlier assessment year is very meagre going\nby the return of income filed for the assessment years 2003-\n2004 to 2005-2006. From the above, it is seen that, the\nargument of the assessee that, HUF was having

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

undisclosed income from commission because, the\nassessee could not explain the said transaction with\nrelevant details to prove his claim that, said income has\nbeen already offered to tax. The learned CIT(A) after\nconsidering relevant facts, has rightly sustained the\naddition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are\ninclined to uphold the order the learned

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

undisclosed income from commission because, the\nassessee could not explain the said transaction with\nrelevant details to prove his claim that, said income has\nbeen already offered to tax. The learned CIT(A) after\nconsidering relevant facts, has rightly sustained the\naddition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are\ninclined to uphold the order the learned

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation. 8.5 Hence the Ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No.2 of the assessee relates to credit entries of five undisclosed bank accounts amounting to Rs.56,72,313/- added to the total income

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed income in seized material.\niv) The appellant contended that the additional income disclosed was\nan estimate based on seized material, adjusted to reflect higher\nprofits while ignoring the losses found mentioned in the\nseized documents, which were apparently due to not updating of\nbooks of accounts.\nv) The seized material contained substantial corroborative evidence of\nundisclosed transactions, including loose

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

undisclosed income of the appellant company for the year under reference and computed the total income at Rs.14,73,61,155/-. 5.2 The appellant objected for the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and filed his written submissions and the main contents of the same run as under: 1. The turnover of the assessee for the subject assessment year

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

undisclosed income of the appellant company for the year under reference and computed the total income at Rs.14,73,61,155/-. 5.2 The appellant objected for the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and filed his written submissions and the main contents of the same run as under: 1. The turnover of the assessee for the subject assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

undisclosed income, if any, found as a result of search and this principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs., Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). The learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that the order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

undisclosed income, if any, found as a result of search and this principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs., Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). The learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that the order

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

undisclosed income found during the course of search proceedings. d) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it is settled position of law that the regular assessment proceedings which are already completed for the year could be interfered under section 153A only on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. Page

ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

undisclosed income found during the course of search proceedings. d) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it is settled position of law that the regular assessment proceedings which are already completed for the year could be interfered under section 153A only on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. Page