INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SILPA INFRATECH LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) to the persons as per the list enclosed to the information furnished by the assessee. Some of such notice is issued and served and on being informed, the assessee furnished the replies from such persons. After considering such material and going through the confirmation letters, the learned Assessing

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

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

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

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

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

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

N. NEMICHAND JEWELLERS,,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. M. Nemichand Vs. A.C.I.T. Jewellers Secunderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacfm8833B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2022 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Retail-Trading Of Gold Jewellery & Pawn Brokers. During The Course Of Vehicle Checking Duty Conducted During Parliament Elections, The Police Intercepted Shri Anil Kumar Jain At 8.30 P M On 20.02.2019 Near Subhan Bakery, Nampally, Hyderabad & Found A Bag Containing Cash Of Rs. 10,00,000/- While He Was Riding Honda Activa Bearing Reg. No.Ts10El1501 & Seized The Cash.

68 of the I.T. Act. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to grant at least one opportunity to the assessee before deciding the change of head from section 69A to section 18 of the Act. 15. The learned

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

133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged from this effort. The payment for the shares in question was made by Sh. Salasar Trading Company. Notice was issued to this entity as well, but when the notices were returned unserved, the AO did not take the matter any further

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

133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged from this effort. The payment for the shares in question was made by Sh. Salasar Trading Company. Notice was issued to this entity as well, but when the notices were returned unserved, the AO did not take the matter any further

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

133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged from this effort. The payment for the shares in question was made by Sh. Salasar Trading Company. Notice was issued to this entity as well, but when the notices were returned unserved, the AO did not take the matter any further

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. :

133(6) of the Act to verify the confirmations directly from the debtors, even though the names, ITA No.1122/Hyd/2025 6 addresses, and in several cases, PAN of debtors were available on record. Relying on the decision of this Tribunal in Ambabhavani Jettem v. ITO (ITA No. 604/Hyd/2024, A.Y. 2017–18, order dated 07.07.2025), where under identical facts the addition