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 should be satisfied together and further cast the initial burden of proving the credits in their books on the assessee are relied upon: The Apex Court in the landmark case of Kalekhan Mohd Haneef Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 01 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (1977) (107 ITR (SC) laid down that the onus

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS 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 should be satisfied together and further cast the initial burden of proving the credits in their books on the assessee are relied upon: The Apex Court in the landmark case of Kalekhan Mohd Haneef Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 01 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (1977) (107 ITR (SC) laid down that the onus

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

68 of the Act. As a result ground no 5 is allowed. 7. In result, the appeal is allowed.” 6. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

SPA CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1132/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Spa Constructions Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Adffs5436E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Spa Constructions (“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 14.06.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

105 to 107 and 144 to 145 of the paper book related to Shri Y. Ananda Rao, Shri K.V. Prasad Rao and Shri M. Subbhaiah respectively, explaining the source of such payment. Further, we observe that the Ld. AO has not found any discrepancy in the bank statements, capital accounts or documents furnished. It is a settled principle that capital

SUJIT AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sujit Agarwal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Aclpa3197P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & The Managing Director Of The Company, M/S. Sawaria Pipes Pvt Ltd. He Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Impugned A.Y On 30.12.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.20,13,600/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.70,200/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 12.01.2016. In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act Issued On 6.9.2016, The Assessee Filed His Return

105/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act which has been sustained by the learned CIT (A) is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that the original return was filed on 30.12.2014 and the time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired when the search took place

HARIYANA STEEL CENTRE (KDM) PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 is unwarranted. 3. The learned first Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Assessing Officer did not accepted the claim of the appellant for Cross examinations. 2. The ld. AR has submitted that the AO had made the addition of Rs. 2.66 crores in the AY 2011-12 on account of the bogus entries taken

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were