ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

cash deposits were made. (ii)A/c.0446102000010362 [IDBI, whose cheque book was found and seized during the search.] 2. As the assessee has not disclosed the bank accounts, nor the sources of deposits were explained by the assessee-firm, an amount of Rs.2,00,09,000 was 'added to the total income of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

cash deposits were made. (ii)A/c.0446102000010362 [IDBI, whose cheque book was found and seized during the search.] 2. As the assessee has not disclosed the bank accounts, nor the sources of deposits were explained by the assessee-firm, an amount of Rs.2,00,09,000 was 'added to the total income of the assessee

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

cash deposits were made. (ii)A/c.0446102000010362 [IDBI, whose cheque book was found and seized during the search.] 2. As the assessee has not disclosed the bank accounts, nor the sources of deposits were explained by the assessee-firm, an amount of Rs.2,00,09,000 was 'added to the total income of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

cash deposits were made. (ii)A/c.0446102000010362 [IDBI, whose cheque book was found and seized during the search.] 2. As the assessee has not disclosed the bank accounts, nor the sources of deposits were explained by the assessee-firm, an amount of Rs.2,00,09,000 was 'added to the total income of the assessee

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

reassessment proceedings. Since there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the cash flow statement filed by the assessee, the A.O. has rightly assessed the income on the basis of seized material. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

reassessment proceedings. Since there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the cash flow statement filed by the assessee, the A.O. has rightly assessed the income on the basis of seized material. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

reassessment proceedings. Since there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the cash flow statement filed by the assessee, the A.O. has rightly assessed the income on the basis of seized material. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should

ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits in Andhra Bank A/c No.052611011010273 to be considered as unaccounted sales whereas the assessee failed to submit any conclusive corroborative evidence. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.750/Hyd/2024 read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant herein; 2) The learned

ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits in Andhra Bank A/c No.052611011010273 to be considered as unaccounted sales whereas the assessee failed to submit any conclusive corroborative evidence. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.750/Hyd/2024 read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant herein; 2) The learned

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits in Andhra Bank A/c No.052611011010273 to be considered as unaccounted sales whereas the assessee failed to submit any conclusive corroborative evidence. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.750/Hyd/2024 read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant herein; 2) The learned

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits in Andhra Bank A/c No.052611011010273 to be considered as unaccounted sales whereas the assessee failed to submit any conclusive corroborative evidence. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.750/Hyd/2024 read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant herein; 2) The learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. VASUDEVA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

cash deposits in Andhra Bank A/c No.052611011010273 to be considered as unaccounted sales whereas the assessee failed to submit any conclusive corroborative evidence. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.750/Hyd/2024 read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant herein; 2) The learned

PRAKASH REDDY VATTI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

reassessment and addition under Section 69A were based on surmises, suspicion, and incomplete or uncorroborated information in violation of the appellant's substantive and procedural rights guaranteed under the Income Tax Act and judicial discipline. 14. The appellant craves leave to amend, modify, add, or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

Bench: Us:

reassessment order, if passed, would result in a baseless and unwarranted demand, causing undue hardship to the appellant.” 3 Sri Edupayala Vana Durga Bhavani 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee, an AOP, had not filed its return of income for the subject year, i.e., A.Y. 2016-17. The A.O., based on information that the assessee had during the subject year made

KHAJAMOINUDDIN MAHAMMAD, WARANGAL. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, WARANGAL.

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

cash and time deposits,\nand verification of multiple bank accounts. He prayed before the\nBench to uphold the validity of the reassessment

VENKATESHWARA RAO POONURU,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Cash Deposited in the bank account cannot be treated as income of the assessee or investment of the assessee. It is also not included u/s. 2(24) of the income definition of the income tax Act, 1961. When these deposits are subject matter of the limited scrutiny proceedings for verification u/s. 143(2), on the same ground and without having

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

cash deposit of 3,29,94,300/- in its bank account in AY 2010-11 And from the records it is seen that Assessee firm M/s Royal Engineering filed ROI for AY 2010-11 on 19.12.2017 by admitting income of Rs 2,30,000/- and same is not processed by ITD and Non-est. (emphasis supplied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

cash deposit of 3,29,94,300/- in its bank account in AY 2010-11 And from the records it is seen that Assessee firm M/s Royal Engineering filed ROI for AY 2010-11 on 19.12.2017 by admitting income of Rs 2,30,000/- and same is not processed by ITD and Non-est. (emphasis supplied