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

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

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

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

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

unexplained\ninvestment in purchase of Flat held by assessee's son Mr.\nKrishna Chandra, though, there is no evidence that, the\nassessee has invested the same. Therefore, he submitted\nthat, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be\ndeleted.\n44.\nSri Gurpreet Singh learned Sr. AR for the\nRevenue, on the other hand. supporting the order of the\nAssessing

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

unexplained expenditure. The assessee has not pressed the ground, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24.9 The Revenue filed the appeal vide ITA No.77/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2008-09 and raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IA for the A.Ys

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

unexplained expenditure. The assessee has not pressed the ground, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24.9 The Revenue filed the appeal vide ITA No.77/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2008-09 and raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IA for the A.Ys

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

unexplained expenditure. The assessee has not pressed the ground, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24.9 The Revenue filed the appeal vide ITA No.77/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2008-09 and raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IA for the A.Ys

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

unexplained expenditure. The assessee has not pressed the ground, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24.9 The Revenue filed the appeal vide ITA No.77/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2008-09 and raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IA for the A.Ys

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

unexplained expenditure. The assessee has not pressed the ground, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24.9 The Revenue filed the appeal vide ITA No.77/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2008-09 and raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IA for the A.Ys

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

unexplained expenditure. The assessee has not pressed the ground, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24.9 The Revenue filed the appeal vide ITA No.77/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2008-09 and raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IA for the A.Ys

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

unexplained expenditure. The assessee has not pressed the ground, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24.9 The Revenue filed the appeal vide ITA No.77/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2008-09 and raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IA for the A.Ys

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

In the result, appeal ITA

unexplained investment in purchase of flat held\nby son Sri Krishna Chandra though there is no evidence that the\nassessee has invested the same.\n7. For these and other grounds that may be urged, it is prayed that\nthe Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appeal.”\n38.\nThe first issue that came-up for consideration\nfrom ground

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

unexplained investment in purchase of flat held\nby son Sri Krishna Chandra though there is no evidence that the\nassessee has invested the same.\n6. The learned CIT(A) though states that the AO has discussed the\nreasons elaborately in the assessment order failed to deal with\nthe submissions of the assessee both at the time of assessment\nand

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

money, which was deposited\nin the names of his employees and accepted the credits in\nthe said account as unaccounted income. Since, the\nassessee was not able to prove the cash deposits with\nsupporting documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer\nmade addition on account of cash deposited into bank\naccounts in the name of employees to the tune of\nRs.1

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

money for purchase of Flat in the name of his son, but, could not explain the source with relevant evidences. Although, the assessee claims to have paid consideration for purchase of Flat out of amount received from HUF, but, going by the ITRs filed by the HUF for the relevant assessment years, we find that, HUF has reported very meagre

SUPREME AGRO,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