VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.58/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.28,37,00,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.58/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.28,37,00,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Act.” 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.58/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.28,37,00,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

SANGEETA YADAV,K V RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed.

demonetization period under Section 69A of the Act, addition of Rs.26,35,565/- u/s 68 of the 3 Sangeeta Yadav

JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Jaya Balaji Real Media Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecb3005F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2024

Section 68 of the I.T. Act with respect to deposits in the Bank account. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the deposits in the Bank account are duly reflected in the Books of accounts and as such part of the Audited Balance Sheet. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Sabitha Anand Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hospital, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Abwfs9326E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital In The Name Of M/S. Sabitha Anand Hospitals. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,70,540/-. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 27.9.2016. Consequent To The Survey Operation, The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Of Page 1 Of 17

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and ii) the amount

NARESH SAMALA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President)

demonetized. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the A.O. treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 88,84,100/- as unexplained cash and brought to tax under Section 68

DUGGINNIGARI SUBRAMANIYAM NAIDU,TIRUPATI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. AO.

demonetization and further, the bank account was linked with HUF PAN only on 01-03-2017. The assessee has not offered acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such money found in his various bank accounts. Therefore, the A.O. rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,69,75,626/- under section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs.50,000/- on 23.12.2016 and Rs.1,50,00,000 on 30.12.2016 in Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000 notes into its bank account. During the course of assessment, the assessee was asked to explain the source of these deposits but failed to provide satisfactory evidence. Summons under Section 131 of the Act and letters under Section

VENKATESHWAR NEMURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-4(1), IT TOWERS,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

68 of the Act and therefore, the addition has to be deleted. Undisputedly, in the face of the allegations of the learned Assessing Officer, section 69A of the Act would be attracted. Mere quoting a wrong section of law will not vitiate the addition. We, therefore, confirmed the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). However, while computing the business income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

demonetization period: Rs.4,89,51,132/-; (iii) addition of unproved sundry creditors under section 68 of the Act: Rs. 43,43,207/-; (iv) addition

GANGADHARAN RENGANATHAN KOMAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from profession and interest income. The assessee filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2017-18 on 29- 09-2017 by declaring total income at Rs.5,31,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify

LAKSHMIRAMANA BANDARU,KADAPA vs. ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

Bench: Us:

68 to 69A), and given that neither provision was applicable in the present facts, there remains no justification for sustaining the impugned addition. 18. The Ld. AR confined his submissions solely to the legal validity of the addition made by the A.O under Section 69A and, in response to a specific query from the bench qua the merits

PERATI SUDARSHAN REDDY,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Perati Sudarshan Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-100, Anantharam, Ward – 1, Warangal. Thorror, Warangal District – 506163. Pan : Bnbpp4854N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2023

section 68 for the sales turnover made during demonetization period. It ought to have considered the fact that, the assessee

ZAVERI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle – 3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacz1286A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2024

68. 3 13. The Ldv PCI T (Central). Hyderabad. failed to appreciate that no interest was paid to any person and section 69C is not applicable. 14. The Ld. PCIT (Central), Hyderabad, erred in giving a finding that the page No. 78 contained the principal loan amount the interest payments during the demonetization

LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

68 of the Act, reduced the addition of Rs. 1,92,33,976/- on account of difference between the receipts appearing in form 26AS and receipts in profit and loss account to Rs. 3,44,455/- and Rs. 6,85,645/- made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act; while deleting the disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

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

68 of the Act, reduced the addition of Rs. 1,92,33,976/- on account of difference between the receipts appearing in form 26AS and receipts in profit and loss account to Rs. 3,44,455/- and Rs. 6,85,645/- made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act; while deleting the disallowance

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

demonetization period, and the transactions were in line with the assessee's regular business. The Tribunal also distinguished the relied upon case laws, stating they were not on the same issue.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "115BBE", "271AAC", "68