ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

68,051 purchases in addition to 100% of purchases considered above Balance excess payments treated as “advance or loan" constituting deemed dividend Aggregate deemed dividend for AY 2019-20 241,53,50,035 243,06,97,212 1,53,47,177 16. The AO observed that the appellant company, being the payer company, is liable to pay dividend distribution

MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

68,051\npurchases in addition to 100%\nof purchases considered above\nBalance excess payments\ntreated as “advance or loan\"\nconstituting deemed\ndividend\nAggregate deemed dividend\nfor AY 2019-20\n241,53,50,035\n243,06,97,212\n1,53,47,177\nParticulars\nA/c of MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd in the\nbooks of the appellant.\nAmount in (Rs.)\n299

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

68,051 purchases in addition to 100% treated as “advance or loan” constituting deemed dividend Aggregate deemed dividend 243,06,97,212 for AY 2019-20 Particulars A/c of MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd in the books of the appellant. Amount in (Rs.) Opening debit balance 299,95,35,547 Add: Sales 100,43,24,928 Add: Payments (net of rent

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

68,051 purchases in addition to 100% treated as “advance or loan” constituting deemed dividend Aggregate deemed dividend 243,06,97,212 for AY 2019-20 Particulars A/c of MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd in the books of the appellant. Amount in (Rs.) Opening debit balance 299,95,35,547 Add: Sales 100,43,24,928 Add: Payments (net of rent

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

68,051 addition to 100% of purchases considered above Balance excess payments 241,53,50,035 1,53,47,177 treated as “advance or loan” constituting deemed dividend Aggregate deemed dividend for 243,06,97,212 AY 2019-20 45 ITA.Nos.382 & 472/Hyd./2025 Particulars A/c of MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd in the books of the appellant. Amount

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 2(22)(e), an amount of Rs. ITA No.1110/Hyd/2018 3 16,68,33,979/- is treated as deemed dividend

RAVINDER RAO TAKKALLAPELLY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 2(22)(e) without correctly appreciating the factual and legal position. The AO failed to distinguish between transactions of business nature and those intended to be covered under the ambit of deemed dividend. Improper Calculation of Deemed Dividend: The calculation of deemed dividend by attributing accumulated profits of Rs.55,37,703 to the shareholder's shareholding percentage was done

ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL, KURNOOL vs. S.V. MOHAN REDDY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. .Act, 1961 of Rs.32,07,253/- is not taxable in the hands of the assessee? 2. Whether the CIT(A) is right in holding that the un explained cash deposits which are taxed u/s 68 of the l.T. Act, 1961 are to be treated as the business receipts of agricultural commodities

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

deem it just and necessary to reproduce the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Court hereunder: “49. An investigation is commenced when allegations crops up regarding tax evasion. The Income-tax department was nowhere in the picture when the assessees effected purchase of the shares and subsequently sold the shares well after the period of 12 months

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

deem it just and necessary to reproduce the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Court hereunder: Page 13 of 28 “49. An investigation is commenced when allegations crops up regarding tax evasion. The Income-tax department was nowhere in the picture when the assessees effected purchase of the shares and subsequently sold the shares well after the period

VISHAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

dividend etc. None of the parameters, which are essential for increase of price of share was present. In spite of this, if the share price is increased multi folded, then it is definitely due to artificial increase. The table in the assessment order clearly indicates that there is manipulation in trading of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Limited, which clearly establishes

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals

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 :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

JEEVAN POLYMERS (P) LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

dividends in these years, The share applicants, balance sheet by using other applicants, are all facade created by infusing unaccounted cash at various levels in the banking systems or using this platform of entities to transfer profit and losses through movement of capital. Therefore, the ITA No. 93/Hyd/2020 AY : 2014-15 Jeevan Polymers (P) Ltd., Hyd. creditworthiness

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S.PVK ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Pvk Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcp 9391Dm (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2021

dividend income during the year under consideration. 5.3 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. We observe that there is no exempt income received by the assessee during the impugned AY. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D is not correct

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock- in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock- in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment