EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961/37Aof-the WT Act-1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place of mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Shri Satendra Sharma (Security incharge) who was present in the said place at the time and after-reading

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

house property. Further, the assessee also could not be able to justify the amount received from his wife and mother. In absence of any evidence, the arguments of the assessee that, source for purchase of property, is out of amount received from HUF, mother and wife cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

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

132(4) of the Act was recorded, where he has admitted that, credits in bank account of employees is unaccounted income and also agreed to pay tax on the same. The Assessing Officer made addition towards credit in bank account on the basis of admission of employees coupled with the statement recorded from the assessee. Although, the assessee came

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Properties Private Limited batch admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. 8.10. The High Court of Jharkhand in case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand), wherein it has held that Statement on oath of an assessee under section 132(4) is a piece of evidence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD vs. LAXMI KOMATIREDDY , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house property, Long Term Capital Gain and other sources. She also derives salary in the capacity of Director of M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of the assessee on 21/07/2016. In response to the notice under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) issued on 27/12/2016, the assessee

KANISHK GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.34/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances. In the absence of any asset being in possession of the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall not have issued the notice to the assessee for making the addition u/s 153A of the Act. In view of the above, the addition made in the hands of the assessee