ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

164\n4,15,74,845\n\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\n\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\n\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

164\n4,15,74,845\n\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\n\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD., HYDERABAD

164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

164 (Gujarat High Court). 2. Sassoon J. David & Co., (P) Ltd Vs. CIT – 118 ITR 261 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) 3. CIT Vs. Walchand and Co., (P) Ltd., - 65 ITR 381 (Hon’ble Supreme Court). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee company submitted a return of income on 25/08/2009, declaring

SATYAM GUPTA ARAVEETI,PRAKASHAM DISTRICT vs. ITO, WARD-1, ONGOLE

164 taxmann.com 348 (Mumbai - Trib.) held that "Where cash deposits made by assessee was not properly explained, since sole source of income of assessed was retail business, such deposits should be treated as unaccounted business income subject to presumptive taxation undersection 44AD, rather than unexplained income under section 69A read with section115BBE"  In the case, Manickam Malu Prasanna vs Assessment

SYED KHADER HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

164 days in filing the appeal.\n\n2. The Learned C.I.T(A)/NFAC failed to note that the\nAppellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause\nin not filing the appeal in time.\n\n3. The Appellant craves to add, modify or amend the above\ngrounds anytime during the course of appeal.\"\n\n3. At the time of hearing