ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Disallowance of loss 3,35,01,000 -- 2008 4. Undisclosed Profit 12 ITA.Nos.427, 428 & 429 /Hyd./2025 earned out of real 80,00,000 80,00,000 estate transaction 5. Unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the 2,09,64,300 2,09,64,300 IT Act 1. Unexplained investment/deficit 1,30,00,000 2,03,91,600 cash balance

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Disallowance of loss 3,35,01,000 -- 2008 4. Undisclosed Profit 12 ITA.Nos.427, 428 & 429 /Hyd./2025 earned out of real 80,00,000 80,00,000 estate transaction 5. Unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the 2,09,64,300 2,09,64,300 IT Act 1. Unexplained investment/deficit 1,30,00,000 2,03,91,600 cash balance

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Disallowance of loss 3,35,01,000 -- 2008 4. Undisclosed Profit 12 ITA.Nos.427, 428 & 429 /Hyd./2025 earned out of real 80,00,000 80,00,000 estate transaction 5. Unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the 2,09,64,300 2,09,64,300 IT Act 1. Unexplained investment/deficit 1,30,00,000 2,03,91,600 cash balance

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits of Rs.3,78,35,000/- is remained unexplained as inference drawn by the AO of disallowing cash deposits

ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits of Rs.3,78,35,000/- is remained unexplained as inference drawn by the AO of disallowing cash deposits

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits of Rs.3,78,35,000/- is remained unexplained as inference drawn by the AO of disallowing cash deposits

ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits of Rs.3,78,35,000/- is remained unexplained as inference drawn by the AO of disallowing cash deposits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. VASUDEVA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits of Rs.3,78,35,000/- is remained unexplained as inference drawn by the AO of disallowing cash deposits

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

deposits into bank accounts of\nemployees without appreciating the submission that all of such\nreceipts relate to the entries in the seized book for survey and\nplotting work done by the firm and were drawn and spent for\nsuch work by them and are considered in the firm's returns that\nare filed.\n7. The learned CIT(A) erred

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

deposited into bank\naccounts in the name of employees to the tune of\nRs.1,30,94,500/- as unexplained cash credit. During the\ncourse of appellate proceedings also, in absence of\nsupporting documentary evidence filed by the assessee to\nsubstantiate his case, the learned CIT(A) has sustained the\naddition made by the Assessing Officer. He, therefore\nsubmitted that

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

deposits into bank accounts of\nemployees without appreciating the submission that all of such\nreceipts relate to the entries in the seized book for survey and\nplotting work done by the firm and were drawn and spent for\nsuch work by them and are considered in the firm's returns that\nare filed.\n7. The learned CIT(A) erred

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

deposits into bank accounts of\nemployees without appreciating the submissi on that all of such\nreceipts relate to the entries in the seized book for survey and\nplotting work done by the firm and were drawn and spent for\nsuch work by them and are considered in the firm's returns that\nare filed.\n7. The learned CIT(A) erred

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

In the result, appeal ITA

deposits into bank accounts of\nemployees without appreciating the submission that all of such\nreceipts relate to the entries in the seized book for survey and\nplotting work done by the firm and were drawn and spent for\nsuch work by them and are considered in the firm's returns that\nare filed.\n7. The learned CIT(A) erred

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWRAH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowed cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/- and added back to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained the source for cash deposit