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)

unexplained investment for failure of the assessee to explain source for purchase of the property. Similarly, the A.O. further 4 Manoj Kumar Chowrah observed that, the assessee has computed short term capital gain from sale of property and also claimed cost of improvement for Rs. 1,00,000/- for which no supporting evidence has been furnished. Therefore, he observed cost

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

unexplained investment in house property for Rs.9,08,650/- 41. During the course of search proceeding, it is noticed that

PRADYUMNA AGROS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1033/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Pradyumna Agro Private Vs. Acit Limited Central Circle-2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aajcp4282H] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad & Shri K.S.Rajendra Kumar, Ar Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Is Erroneous & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Law.

property and made additions towards the difference as unexplained investment. 6. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the appellant and also taking note of the remand report of the Assessing Officer on this issue, rejected the legal ground taken by the appellant, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

house rent, capital gain and other sources and there is no income under the head “business or profession”. The transactions of the acquisition of shares by the assessee of these 3 companies are in the nature of investments and therefore, there is no involvement in business activity on the part of the assessee while acquiring the shares of these

ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property and income from other sources and does not have income from business or profession. Therefore, the income declared by the assessee under the head income from other sources and assessed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

HITEC CYBERSPAZIO LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

property, held the same as the assessee’s unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 21/03/2024, determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs. 184,02,01,039/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before

ABDUL SALAM SHAIK,PILER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

investment in the house property. The relevant portion\nof the written submission of the assessee in this regard is reproduced as under:\nA. Sale of property (BK-1, CS No.2467/2016 & Doct No. 2386/2016 sale deed\ndated 13/10/2016) by assessee's wife, Smt Reshma Rs 10,13,000/:-\nAO's findings:\nThe AO noted that as per the sale deed, dated

MOHAMMED MANNAN ABDUL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

unexplained investment u/sec.69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned PCIT has erred in 5 ITA.No.249/Hyd./2024 setting-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact