VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

195 (Bom). The Hon'ble High Court, by drawing support from the\nlandmark judgment of the “Full bench” of the Hon'ble High Court of\nDelhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del)\n[which thereafter had been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT\nVs. Kelvinator of India

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

195 (SC) 6. PCIT Vs. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd (2022) 143 taxmann.com 209. 7. PCIT Vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd (2021) 129 taxmann.com 87 (SC). 8. Per contra, the ld.AR had submitted that in the Profit and Loss account, the assessee had only debited a total sum of Rs.68,26,342/- as expenses and out of the said amount

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

reassessment or re-computation, as envisaged in Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant in this regard three orders passed by Hon’ble ITAT Benches viz., (i) ACIT Vs. Narendra N. Thacker [(2016) 45 ITR Trib 188 (Kol)]; (ii) unreported judgement in ACIT Vs. Sajjan Singh and (iii) unreported order in Arun Bansal, Delhi Vs. ACIT, Delhi

CHANDINI DUVVURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

195. Since the assessee had not filed the return of income under Section 139(1), the sources for the said deposits and interest receipts were not explained before the Department. Consequently, the A.O., after following due procedure prescribed under Section 148A, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 04.04.2022, with the prior approval of the competent authority. During

ANANTHA PVC PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.317/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1, Kurnool. Anantapur. Pan:Aagca0936J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. & Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The

reassessment proceedings and appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it had earlier furnished all relevant documents during scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, such as, Audited financial statements, Cash book, Sales invoices, excise records and Bank statements, which are placed at page nos. 10 to 87 and 195 to 300 of the paper book

GUPTA ASHOK KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

1.T. Act such as identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the loan transaction are all not conclusively established by the assessee beyond doubt. The unsecured loan transaction between the assesse and the three entities i.e. Neelgagan, Nirmalkunj and 10 ITA.No.376/Hyd./2024 Nightbird to the extent of Rs.3,00,00,096/- is considered to be a bogus

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

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act. Once the\ninitial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts\nto the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case,\nalthough the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved\nall three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the\nAssessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit\nonly

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

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.64/Hyd/2021 & 65/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zara Investments 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 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. Zara Investments Pvt. Ltd.

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only