BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

penalty notices u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB along with Draft assessment order dated 30.12.2016, which tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. 2. Erred in making adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act for Rs. 4,79,143/- in respect of transaction of Corporate Guarantee provided to DCO Bank, Singapore on behalf of loan to BS Resource Pte Limited

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

Purchase cost of lands - Rs. 7,50,00,000 ----------------- Rs. 5,00,00,000 Less: Development expenses as Discussed above Rs. Nil Income on sale of lands Rs. 5,00,00,000 ========= 6. Disallowance of Contract payments u/s 40(a)(ia): 6.1 On verification of the details, the AO noticed that the assessee-company though deducted the TDS on contract

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus and that the department has no case to disbelieve the credits in the\nbooks by way of advances. It is also stated in the reply that all the above persons are\nabsconding because of a criminal case instituted against them due to which confirmation\nletters could not be procured and the lapse in this regard is due to impossibility

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus and that the department has no case to disbelieve the credits in the\nbooks by way of advances. It is also stated in the reply that all the above persons are\nabsconding because of a criminal case instituted against them due to which confirmation\nletters could not be procured and the lapse in this regard is due to impossibility

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ADARSH GLOBAL TRADES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Adarsh Global Trades & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Private Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakca7278H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr 04.03.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2024

bogus purchases as alleged. 5. The NFAC and the NFAC erred in treating the creditors as non- genuine for the mere reason that few details, including balance confirmation were not furnished at a short notice. 6. The NFAC and the NFAC failed to state the specific provisions of the Act under which addition

DEEPAK NAGORI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

bogus entries of LTCG amounting to several crores from 2010 to 2014. ii. The result of the enquiry was also shared with SEBI and the SEBI after investigating 11 cases have found the allegation to be correct. The remaining cases are still being investigated by SEBI. iii. TOP 25 groups under each investigation directorate of the country were confronted

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act\n1961 are initiated for concealment of income.\n(Disallowance: Rs 6,41,12,159/-)\n6.1.\nThus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has\nproceeded by taking the book value of these two scrips as on\n31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 prior and post-split of shares. It\nis pertinent to note

NAGESWARA RAO PINNETI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1941/Hyd/2018 filed by the assessee Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal is directed against the order dated 17.05.2018 of the learned CIT (A)-6 Hyderabad relating to A.Y 2015-16. ITA No.1942/Hyd/2018 filed by the assessee Shri Sumeet Kumar Agarwal against the order dated 17.05.2018 of the learned CIT (A)-6 Hyderabad

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1941/Hyd/2018 filed by the assessee Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal is directed against the order dated 17.05.2018 of the learned CIT (A)-6 Hyderabad relating to A.Y 2015-16. ITA No.1942/Hyd/2018 filed by the assessee Shri Sumeet Kumar Agarwal against the order dated 17.05.2018 of the learned CIT (A)-6 Hyderabad