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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

145 (Guj- HC) : (2008) 217 CTR (Guj)\n401, it was held that as per section 68, there should be cash\ncredits of previous year. The section provides for a deeming\nfiction of treating the sum found credited in the books of an\nassessee maintained for any previous year, being charged to\nincome-tax as the income

LAKSHMIRAMANA BANDARU,KADAPA vs. ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

Bench: Us:

145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT (Appeals), based on his findings, concluded that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of cash in hand on 31.03.2016 of Rs. 40,61,284/- (supra) that it had claimed to have generated during the subject year from cash sales and recovery from debtors, as he could not satisfactorily establish

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the addition of Rs.11,44,51,818/- (supra) made by the\nAO, which, thereafter, had been sustained by the CIT(A), is vacated.\nThe Grounds of appeal Nos.3.1 to 3.4 are allowed in terms o...

145 of the Act. The A.O. was of the view that, as the assessee\ncompany had followed the mercantile system of accounting,\ntherefore, the amounts were required to be assessed on an accrual\nbasis. Accordingly, the A.O., based on his aforesaid conviction, made\nan addition of Rs.11,44,51,818/- (supra) to the returned income of\nthe assessee company

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145 on the basis of the\nbooks regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are\n28\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\nnot correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those\nbooks and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment.\nSince, the Assessing Officer has estimated 18% profit

ALOK KUMAR SIMHARAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

Sections 145(3) and 68 is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed in full. As claimed by appellant, no books

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

68,613 as paid in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the payment in question were below Rs.20,000 on different

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

68,613 as paid in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the payment in question were below Rs.20,000 on different

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated 16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition under the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred under section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are\n\n28\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n\nnot correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment. Since, the Assessing Officer has estimated

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated\n16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition\nunder the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G\nin respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred\nunder section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of\nclarity, we deem it apposite

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145 on the basis of the\nbooks regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are\n\n28\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\nnot correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those\nbooks and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment.\nSince, the Assessing Officer has estimated 18% profit

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KRISHNAPURAM,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are\n\nnot correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment. Since, the Assessing Officer has estimated 18% profit on undisclosed turnover, which is not on the basis of regular books

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145 on the basis of the\nbooks regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n47\nnot correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those\nbooks and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment.\nSince, the Assessing Officer has estimated 18% profit

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145 on the basis of the\nbooks regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are\n\n28\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\nnot correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those\nbooks and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment.\nSince, the Assessing Officer has estimated 18% profit

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145 on the basis of the\nbooks regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n\n28\n\nnot correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those\nbooks and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment.\nSince, the Assessing Officer has estimated

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