INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

68. read with section 133 of the income-tax Act. 1961 Cash credit (Sundry creditors) Assessment year 2010-11 Assessing

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

Section 68 of the Act. The sum and substance of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that once the initial burden is discharged by filing relevant evidences, then the AO can proceed to reopen the assessment of the creditors in accordance with law, but sum received from the creditor cannot be regarded as income

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.

68,930/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with a reason of verification of ‘Cash deposit during the year’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 1,93,78,000/- into four bank accounts maintained with Union Bank of India and Central Bank of India

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring a loss of Rs.1,07,26,510/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and notices

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various dates to various shareholders. Learned Assessing Officer has given

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various dates to various shareholders. Learned Assessing Officer has given

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

133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad 35. Before the learned CIT (A), it was submitted that the assessee did not maintain any books of account and the amounts are not credited in the books of account. Therefore, provisions of section 68

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

133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad 35. Before the learned CIT (A), it was submitted that the assessee did not maintain any books of account and the amounts are not credited in the books of account. Therefore, provisions of section 68

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

133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad 35. Before the learned CIT (A), it was submitted that the assessee did not maintain any books of account and the amounts are not credited in the books of account. Therefore, provisions of section 68

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

133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad 35. Before the learned CIT (A), it was submitted that the assessee did not maintain any books of account and the amounts are not credited in the books of account. Therefore, provisions of section 68

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

133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad 35. Before the learned CIT (A), it was submitted that the assessee did not maintain any books of account and the amounts are not credited in the books of account. Therefore, provisions of section 68

SURYANARAYANA GANDLA,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 1, ANANTAPUR.

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1122/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Suryanarayana Gandla, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tax, Circle-1, Anantapur. Anantapur. Pan: Abipg4005A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasaad, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. :

68–78. Despite this, both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) recorded that no confirmations were filed, which was factually incorrect. The Ld. AR also referred to page nos. 2 to 5 of the paper book, containing the list of debtors from whom cash had been received, which was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) as well. The same

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act as mentioned elsewhere, such discharge of onus is purely a question of fact and therefore the judicial decisions relied upon by the DR would do no good on the peculiar plethora of evidences in respect of the facts of the case in hand and hence the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides, though perused

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act as mentioned elsewhere, such discharge of onus is purely a question of fact and therefore the judicial decisions relied upon by the DR would do no good on the peculiar plethora of evidences in respect of the facts of the case in hand and hence the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides, though perused

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act as mentioned elsewhere, such discharge of onus is purely a question of fact and therefore the judicial decisions relied upon by the DR would do no good on the peculiar plethora of evidences in respect of the facts of the case in hand and hence the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides, though perused

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 confirming execution of work. It was also submitted that no material has been brought on record to establish that any amount has flown back to the assessee or that any commission income has been earned. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 confirming execution of work. It was also submitted that no material has been brought on record to establish that any amount has flown back to the assessee or that any commission income has been earned. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

133(6) and summons under section 131 confirming execution of work. It was also submitted that no material has been brought on record to establish that any amount has flown back to the assessee or that any commission income has been earned. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings