BALGURI RAJESHWAR RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1728/Hyd/2025

unexplained money towards variations amounting to Rs.1,18,92,850/-u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 14.02.2024 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

VASUKI KATAKAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

money u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has issued notices on 05 occasions i.e., dated

ABHYUDAYA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

money of Rs. 15 Lakhs and claimed depreciation under Income tax rules for Rs. 11,69,017/- and accordingly offered total income of Rs. 4,81,808/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 13-03-2003. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made

THE PRAKASAM DISTRISET POLICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

money. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, OR modify the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Also, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal: 3 The Prakasam District Police Welfare Association vs. ITO "In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment notice u/s 148 dated

LAXMI VENKATA KRISHNA RICE CORPORATION,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 16/03/2023 determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs.65,50,000/-. 6. Aggrieved the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee firm being

HIMABINDU,BANGALORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. He also noted that, the Aircel Ltd. had paid Rs.25,14,149/- to the assessee as commission. Since no reconciliation of commission received was provided by the assessee, he added the same as undisclosed income, despite assessee having already declared commission income. The Ld. AO also found that, the assessee claimed expenditure

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. STYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

money. (iii) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid even on the ground that such notice was issued without approval from the authority as specified in S.151 of the Act, (iv) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice

ANKIT BISCUITS PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Ankit Biscuits P Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aabca7142D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya For Shri Kprr Murthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Biscuits & Allied Products. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted On 15.11.2018 In The Case Of The Assessee Along With M/S. Ravi Foods Pvt Ltd & Group Cases. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 25.10.2019 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.3,71,18,230/-. The Assessing Officer Issued Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Calling For Page 1 Of 9

money u/s. 69A of the IT Act to the income returned by the appellant. Going into the facts of the case, during the course of search operation, cash of Rs. 15,57,520/ was found at the premises of the appellant company and it is seen from the cash book of the appellant company that the cash balance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

depreciation on Rs.183 crores. 3.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the intangible", assets quantified at Rs.1,464 crore was not supported by any documentary proof. 4. Enhancement by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act: 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

depreciation on Rs.183 crores. 3.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the intangible", assets quantified at Rs.1,464 crore was not supported by any documentary proof. 4. Enhancement by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act: 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained cash receipts. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 12,89,185/- by holding that the assessee’s activity of cutting granite into blocks amounts to manufacturing / production. Appeal No.620/H/2014 (AY: 2007-08): (Assessee’s appeal) 10. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues