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...

68\nand 69A are quite similar, we request your good self to analyse the decision and\nappreciate that the same can be applied to our case also. The decision is\nattached for your reference (pls refer from Para 5 on [page 9 till para 15 on page\n9)\niv) Additionally, various appellate forums have held that where books of\naccounts/other

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

182 vi. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAO-IT. 8.1 There was incorrect application of law which constitutes an error and as such the. assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: " Spandana Spoorty Financial

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

182 vi. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAO-IT. 8.1 There was incorrect application of law which constitutes an error and as such the. assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: " Spandana Spoorty Financial

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred