ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

68. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that the creditworthiness of the lender company is proved. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in accepting the genuineness of the transact-on. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Vodafone International Holding (341 ITRI) is wrong

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

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

KALVAKUNTLA SUDHIR RAO KARTA OF KALVAKUNTLA VENKATA RAJESWARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , 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. He accordingly dismissed the relevant ground. 14. Learned AR reiterated that these loan creditors are coming from the earlier years and, therefore, without questioning the same in the earlier years, learned Assessing Officer cannot question it in this year. Learned DR submitted that absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that these loan creditors

VSN AND JEEVAN INFRA DEVELOPERS, PERURU PANCHAYAT,TIRUPATHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

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.707/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vsn & Jeevan Infra Vs. Dy.Cit Developers, Peruru Central Circle Panchayat, Tirupati Tirupati Pan:Aaifv3414B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vsn & Jeevan Infra Developers (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.02.2017 For The A.Y 2009- 10. Page 1 Of 12

section 68 of the Act on account of a unsecured loan received by the assessee from Shri Jayadeva Naidu, and the third issue relates to a legal ground wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment proceedings. 8. As regards the addition of Rs. 1.80 crores on account of alleged on-money received from M.G. Brothers

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL vs. VASAVI BULLION CORPORATION , KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ito,Ward-2 V M/S Vasavi Bullion 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan S. Corporation N.R.Pet 28/B2, K.S.Complex Opp:Childresn Park Sharoff Bazar, Kurnool-518 001 Kurnool-518 001

68 under the facts and circumstances of the case? 3) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that cash deposit in bank should be explained by assessee, otherwise it is unexplained income u/s.69 or 69 B as held by Supreme Court in the case of Cit Vs K.Chinnathamban (SC) 232 ITR 682 and also ITAT, Special bench, Delhi held the same

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

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

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