SHIVA RANJANI VEJJA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment notice upon him. In this case the AO at Noida based on the address issued notice u/s 148. The assessee filed his return of income belatedly and stated that he was regularly assessed with ITO Delhi and thus challenged the jurisdiction. The HC observed that as per section 120, the Act does not authoritatively confer exclusive jurisdiction to specific

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.10,77,200/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. Ostensibly, as the assessee despite having been afforded

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.10,77,200/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. Ostensibly, as the assessee despite having been afforded

JVR RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

147. Since Skylark Commodeal Pvt.Ltd was found to be a shell company lacking credible sources, therefore, the entire preference 4 JVR Retails Pvt.Ltd. share capital of Rs.4,82,25,000/- should have been brought to tax as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act. 5. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the assessment order dated 27.06.2019 passed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

money received from Safeco Projects Pvt Ltd was passed on to Brightmoon constructions Pvt Ltd and Aravali Infra power Ltd and that in any case the assessee admitted profit on the same @ 12.5%. 9. Even otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to show that assessee is the beneficiary of the entry because the funds were not shown to have been

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

Bench: Us:

u/s 147 of the IT Act estimating the income @ 8% on gross receipts of Rs. 2.48 crores. 4. The PCIT's erred in issuing show cause notice dated 13/12/2023 findings that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are arbitrary, perverse, and based on mere conjectures and surmises. 5. The directions issued

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.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

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.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

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.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

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.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

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.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

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

reassessment be held as invalid in law or alternatively delete all the additions made”. 7. We have heard the learned DR and perused the record. So far as the grounds relating to validity of re-assessment proceedings are concerned, we find the learned CIT (A) while deciding the issue has observed as under: Page

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

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

reassessment be held as invalid in law or alternatively delete all the additions made”. 7. We have heard the learned DR and perused the record. So far as the grounds relating to validity of re-assessment proceedings are concerned, we find the learned CIT (A) while deciding the issue has observed as under: Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. STYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 9. On perusal of the CIT(A) order, we find that it was, inter alia, observed by him that as the notice u/s 148 of the Act, which should have been issued in a faceless manner, was issued

RAMA MOHAN SOMA,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, HINDUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

money with evidence and creditworthiness of lenders inspite of being called for time and again. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained investment u/s 69B 3 of the Act and thereafter completed the assessment and passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 determining the total income at Rs.52

POTU JANARDHAN RAO,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. However, the A.O considering the fact that the assessee had disclosed an income of Rs.1.80 lac in his return of income as was originally filed, therefore, confined the addition to an amount of Rs. 52,20,000/- [Rs. 54,00,000 (minus) Rs. 1,80,000]. Accordingly, the AO vide

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

unexplained expenditure/ disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act. Therefore, erred in confirming additions made by Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings amounting to Rs.273,02,94,670/-. 5. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that notice u/s 148 is issued on account of a letter from ADIT Kolkata, in respect of a transaction amounting to Rs.5

SYED GULAM MOHIUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

money for purchase of immoveable property. v) The Assessing Officer vide para-No. 11 of the assessment order, informed the assessee that he eligible assessee under sub-sec. 15(b)(ii) of Sec. 144C to avail benefit of reference of raising objections or to approach. As per the provisions u/s 144C(2)he assessee had time of 30 days

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Page 4 of 74 ITA No 1894 of 2025 Exel Rubber Private Ltd 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the appellant company preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(Appeals). During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant company challenged the assessment order on legal grounds regarding validity of notice