SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68 cannot\nbe applied. It was also held that the balances were brought\nforward balances and if the same were added on account of\ntheir non- genuineness, then also these amounts could not be\nadded to the income of the assessee for the year under\nconsideration as the question of genuineness thereof can be\nexamined only in the year

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.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/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.37,11,34,000/- 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.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/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.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

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 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/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.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

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.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/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.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

VIVA BOARDS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

142(1) dated 29-08-2019 and 19-09-2019 was issued requiring the assessee company to furnish the information related to the details of unsecured loans taken from the related parties along with their names, PAN, communication addresses, confirmations, and ledger copies of the loans. In response to the notice issued by the A.O., the assessee company, vide letter

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that sufficient time was not provided during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 7. The brief facts of the case

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that sufficient time was not provided during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 7. The brief facts of the case

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that sufficient time was not provided during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 7. The brief facts of the case

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 115JB. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T Act. Subsequently, the case was converted to scrutiny through CASS. In response to the notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1), the AR’s of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the information called for. After hearing the AR and after verifying

MURAD KHETANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

142(1) of the Act dated 13.02.2018 called upon the assessee to furnish the address and PAN details of the loan creditors. In response, the assessee did not 3 Murad Khetani submit any details. Therefore, summons under Section 131, dated 19.12.2018 were issued to the assessee. In response to the summons, the assessee filed a letter on 24.12.2018 requesting

MOHAMMED MUJEEB UR RAHMAN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Mohd. Mujeeb Ur Vs. Acit, Rahman, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Aajpu8580G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/10/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Taxing The Amount Of Rs.70.00 Lakhs Admitted As Additional Income In The Return Of Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The I.T. Act.

142(1) was also issued calling for certain information in response to which the assessee filed the requisite information. 3.1 The Assessing Officer noted that during the course of search at the residence of Shri Mujeeb UR Rahman on 12.07.2018 cash of Rs.70,30,000/- was found. Since the assessee could not explain the source of cash so found

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

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the Ld. AR on few occasions upheld the order of the Ld. AO as he was also of the view that the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction have not been established. While arriving at such decision, he relied on the second remand report obtained from

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

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the Ld. AR on few occasions upheld the order of the Ld. AO as he was also of the view that the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction have not been established. While arriving at such decision, he relied on the second remand report obtained from

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

142 or sub-section (2) of Section\n143 or Section 148 or sub-section (1) of Section 153A or sub-section (2)\nof Section 153C. To sum up, the obligation cast upon an assessee to\ncall in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-\nsection (3) of Section

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) inter alia observed that the assessee had failed to comply with the notice issued by the A.O. under Section 148 of the Act. Also, it was observed by him that the assessee, despite multiple statutory notices under Section

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) inter alia observed that the assessee had failed to comply with the notice issued by the A.O. under Section 148 of the Act. Also, it was observed by him that the assessee, despite multiple statutory notices under Section