RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

unexplained credit taxed in the hands of the firm, in their respective hands. The appellants and the firm are different entitites and therefore needs to be taxed separately in their own hands especially when the nature is different and it is important to note that when the incriminating documents of Rs.70,00,000/ - pertaining to both the appellants were found

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

unexplained credit taxed in the hands of the firm, in their respective hands. The appellants and the firm are different entitites and therefore needs to be taxed separately in their own hands especially when the nature is different and it is important to note that when the incriminating documents of Rs.70,00,000/ - pertaining to both the appellants were found

SHAFIUDDIN AHMED QUADRI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Shafiuddin Ahmed Quadri, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 7(1), Pan – Aabpq 1650M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2022

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. He contended that the AO reopened the assessment without any tangible material on hand and without satisfying himself as to the escapement of income and, thus, the basic requirement of satisfaction of the AO for reopening the assessment is missed in this case. He further submitted that the case of the assessee

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

unexplained asset/undisclosed investment in the hands of the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee did not furnish books of account, vouchers/bills, LRs/DCs for the expenditure claimed in the P&L A/c. He, therefore, made an addition of Rs.9,91,15,015/- being 10% of the entire expenditure of Rs.99,91,50,156/- claimed by the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

unexplained asset/undisclosed investment in the hands of the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee did not furnish books of account, vouchers/bills, LRs/DCs for the expenditure claimed in the P&L A/c. He, therefore, made an addition of Rs.9,91,15,015/- being 10% of the entire expenditure of Rs.99,91,50,156/- claimed by the assessee

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

investment with credible evidence. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the requirements of invocation of the provisions of section 69. 6. Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds. which may be necessary.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of ceramic tiles had filed

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

investment for purchase of residential Flat-404, 5th\nFloor, Subhalaxmi Apartments, Green Hills Colony,\nKothapet, Hyderabad in January 2005. The assessee was\nasked to clarify the source for such investment and in\nresponse, the assessee admitted that, investment was made\nby him and that, the total consideration including the\nregistration fee and modification of Flat comes to Rs.9.08\nlakhs

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

investment made in fixed assets as application of income and the allowance of depreciation on the same fixed assets will result in allowance of double deduction to the assessee. In this regard, it is relevant to mentioned here that, the allowance of depreciation under similar cases has been restricted u/s. 11(6) of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2015 i.e. w.e.f

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

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

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,14,809/- claimed by the assessee was also disallowed. 5.4 As per the information available, the assessee had entered into a property transaction to the tune of Rs. 54,54,000/- on 24.11.2016. As the assessee did not offer any explanation about the said property transaction and has categorically denied having entered into any property transaction

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

depreciable assets as on 01/04/2016 amounting to Rs.\n8,03,49,732/-, and that the capital expenditure of Rs.\n23,05,58,865/- completed during the year was transferred to the\n\"fixed assets account”, while only the incomplete portion was\nretained under CWIP. We find that these factual assertions of the\nassessee firm have not been examined or controverted

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

depreciable assets as on 01/04/2016 amounting to Rs. 8,03,49,732/-, and that the capital expenditure of Rs. 23,05,58,865/- completed during the year was transferred to the “fixed assets account”, while only the incomplete portion was retained under CWIP. We find that these factual assertions of the assessee firm have not been examined or controverted

DAYACHARY PONNEKANTI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

unexplained money. The assessee borrowed from friends and\nrelatives and loans are genuine\n9. Without prejudice to above, the appellant requests for an epportunity of\nproving the loans with documentary evidence as at 31.03.2016 of Rs.\n1,06,00,000/-.\n10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or substitute any ground of\nappeal, at any time before

FLYTECH AVIATION LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Flytech Aviation Limited, Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Secunderabad. Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Pan : Aaacf3053D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.09.2022

unexplained investment u/s 69B of the IT Act, 1961. The total addition on this account is of Rs.7,95,72,739/-.” 7. Ld.AR has drawn our attention to Para 5.4 of the order of ld.CIT(A) which reads as under : 6 7 8. The ld.AR for the assessee had further submitted that both the lower authorities have failed to appreciate

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. He contended that the AO reopened the assessment without any tangible material on hand and without satisfying himself as to the escapement of income and, thus, the basic requirement of satisfaction of the AO for reopening the assessment is missed in this case. He further submitted that the case 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

investment and accepted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, clearly shows that the assessee was not interested in cross-examining the said Mukhesh Sharma. Furthermore, the money given by the assessee was illegal money (gratification) for grant of the contract of Rs.267 crores to various persons (Minister, Commissioner, Urban Secretary, Mayor etc.). In fact, when the evidence of illegal

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

investment and accepted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, clearly shows that the assessee was not interested in cross-examining the said Mukhesh Sharma. Furthermore, the money given by the assessee was illegal money (gratification) for grant of the contract of Rs.267 crores to various persons (Minister, Commissioner, Urban Secretary, Mayor etc.). In fact, when the evidence of illegal

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

investment and accepted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, clearly shows that the assessee was not interested in cross-examining the said Mukhesh Sharma. Furthermore, the money given by the assessee was illegal money (gratification) for grant of the contract of Rs.267 crores to various persons (Minister, Commissioner, Urban Secretary, Mayor etc.). In fact, when the evidence of illegal

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

investment and accepted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, clearly shows that the assessee was not interested in cross-examining the said Mukhesh Sharma. Furthermore, the money given by the assessee was illegal money (gratification) for grant of the contract of Rs.267 crores to various persons (Minister, Commissioner, Urban Secretary, Mayor etc.). In fact, when the evidence of illegal