MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

68,95,756 - 14,09,92,643 2020-21 5,12,22,731 3,27,38,075 1,02,22,479 48,55,404 2,67,81,999 - 12,58,20,688 2021-22 5,57,69,012 1,62,07,177 58,57,556 41,70,416 3,24,22,875 9,03,945 11,53,30,981 Total

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

68,95,756 - 14,09,92,643 2020-21 5,12,22,731 3,27,38,075 1,02,22,479 48,55,404 2,67,81,999 - 12,58,20,688 2021-22 5,57,69,012 1,62,07,177 58,57,556 41,70,416 3,24,22,875 9,03,945 11,53,30,981 Total

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

68,95,756 14,09,92,643 2020-21 5,12,22,731 3,27,38,075 1,02,22,479 48,55,404 2,67,81,999 12,58,20,688 2021-22 5,57,69,012 1,62,07,177 58,57,556 41,70,416 3,24,22,875 9,03,945 11,53,30,981 Total

MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

142(1) of the Act, the appellant reiterated the\nexplanation furnished by MSN Reddy, the Managing Director of the\nappellant company, in the sworn statement dated 27-04-2021 and\nthe affidavit dated 05-07-2021, and contended that the\nunaccounted cash receipts from the sale of spent solvents / scrap\noffered as additional income in the return of income filed

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

142(1) of the Act was issued the assessee calling for information. After considering the information submitted by the assessee, assessment was completed under Section u/s 153A of the Act interalia making addition of Rs.1,10,89,415/- towards unaccounted sale of spent solvents and scrap for the year under consideration. 3.1. The assessee has filed an appeal against

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

142(1) of the Act was issued the assessee calling for information. After considering the information submitted by the assessee, assessment was completed under Section u/s 153A of the Act interalia making addition of Rs.1,10,89,415/- towards unaccounted sale of spent solvents and scrap for the year under consideration. 3.1. The assessee has filed an appeal against

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

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

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance (or set off of any loss/ shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) [and clause (b)/ of sub-section (1)./ In the present case, the Assessing Officer has determined

KANISHKA 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

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance (or set off of any loss/ shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) [and clause (b)/ of sub-section (1)./ In the present case, the Assessing Officer has determined

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

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance (or set off of any loss/ shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) [and clause (b)/ of sub-section (1)./ In the present case, the Assessing Officer has determined

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

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

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

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

SREE KANYAKA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT CREDIT AND MARKETG. SOCIETY LIMITED,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HINDUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

142(1) dated 24/02/2021 is accepted but not found to be tenable as discussed above. Therefore, the interest income received from IDBI Bank amounting to Rs. 4,06,244/- is not found to be exempted under section 80P and hence is added back to the total Income of the assessee for the year under consideration, under the Head “Income

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)

2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the additions made, which is not based on any incriminating material. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- 4. The Appellate Commissioner erred in changing the charging section from 68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The Appellate Commissioner erred

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)

2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the additions made, which is not based on any incriminating material. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- 4. The Appellate Commissioner erred in changing the charging section from 68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The Appellate Commissioner erred

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)

2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the additions made, which is not based on any incriminating material. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- 4. The Appellate Commissioner erred in changing the charging section from 68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The Appellate Commissioner erred

RAJA BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought