BASANTH LAL SAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

disallowance of purchases. 3 Basanth Lal Sah. 8. The Ld. CIT(A), without independent verification into the facts of the case, erred in aligning with the contentions/observations of the AO which were in turn based on inferences driven by suspicion, assumptions, conjectures and surmises. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions alleging bogus purchases solely

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not need any specific adjudication. 58. Insofar as Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal is concerned, same relates to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. We find that it is identical to ground of appeal No.2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020. We have already

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not need any specific adjudication. 58. Insofar as Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal is concerned, same relates to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. We find that it is identical to ground of appeal No.2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020. We have already

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not need any specific adjudication. 58. Insofar as Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal is concerned, same relates to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. We find that it is identical to ground of appeal No.2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020. We have already