MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision , then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE V.Favourite Industries (2012) 16 GSTR 184(SC); (2012) 7 SCC 153 has succinctly observed thus (page 191 of 16 GSTR)" At page-575 "It is now a well-established principle

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

161. [This Court observed that the \"legal fiction undoubtedly is to be construed in such a manner so as to enable a person, for whose benefit such legal fiction has been created, to obtain all consequences flowing therefrom.\"] 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

161. [This Court observed that the "legal fiction undoubtedly is to be construed in such a manner so as to enable a person, for whose benefit such legal fiction has been created, to obtain all consequences flowing therefrom."] 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

GAVIREDDYGARI HARIKISHORE REDDY,ANANTHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

SARITHA AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

ANDEM SANDHYA REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

SARITHA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there

GAVIREDDYGARI APARNA KALYANI,ANANTHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered as conclusive evidence against the assessee, unless there