GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

Section 68 of the Act, as it stood prior to the Finance Act, 2012, is being extracted below:- "68. Cash credits--Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no Page 25 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

Section 68 of the Act, as it stood prior to the Finance Act, 2012, is being extracted below:- "68. Cash credits--Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no Page 25 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195

GUPTA ASHOK KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 68 of the Act. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Lovely exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195

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 68 of the Income Tax Act, is erroneous and untenable. 3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the evidence filed in support of the appellants plea that the said addition is unwarranted. 2 Agarwal Industries Pvt.Ltd. 4. In any event the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred is not appreciating that the said cash credit did not result

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)

Section 68 of the Act, the initial onus is on the assessee company to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. Once the initial onus is discharged by filing the relevant details, the onus shifts to the A.O. to prove otherwise. In other words, once the initial onus is discharged

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

195, the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf in the Finance Act of the relevant year or the rate or rates of income-tax specified in an agreement entered into by the Central Government under section 90, or an agreement notified by the 14 Spectra Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Central Government under section 90A, whichever

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

Section 68 of the Act, and therefore, their order should be upheld. 8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the assessee Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that the assessee had received advance for the sale of shares from AGVIPL Company through proper banking channels. The assessee has also furnished

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

section 68 in respect of its sale transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd. 25. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as the assessee company had entered into bogus transactions with M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd., i.e., a bogus accommodation entry provider entity, therefore, the AO had rightly made an addition of the value of such transactions by treating

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

section 68 in\nrespect of its sale transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd.\n25.\nThe Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as the assessee company had\nentered into bogus transactions with M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd., i.e.,\na bogus accommodation entry provider entity, therefore, the AO had\nrightly made an addition of the value of such transactions by treating

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

195 of the Act. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of running Nursing Home. During the course of proceedings U/s. 201(1) of the Act it was observed by the Ld. DIT (International Taxation) that in the relevant Financial Year 2011-12, the assessee company

RK INTERIORS CFS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1865/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 M/S. Rk Interiors Cfs (India) Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034. Ward-3(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aakcr1592H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

section 68 of the Act.” 8. Thus, the Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of the transaction of unsecured loans from the 11 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2025 Directors and rejected the explanation of the source and creditworthiness being withdrawal made by the Directors from the partnership firm. It is manifest from the Order of the Assessing Officer that the Assessing

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

section, the Assessing Officer cannot make addition u/e 68 of act if the assessee proves ;  Identity  Creditworthiness and  Genuineness of transaction. In the present case, AO has made an addition of Rs. 73,89,650/- towards unexplained investment u/s 68 of the act, even though all the above mentioned conditions are satisfied. 8.7. We would like to place

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

section, the Assessing Officer cannot make addition u/e 68 of act if the assessee proves ;  Identity  Creditworthiness and  Genuineness of transaction. In the present case, AO has made an addition of Rs. 73,89,650/- towards unexplained investment u/s 68 of the act, even though all the above mentioned conditions are satisfied. 8.7. We would like to place

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

section, the Assessing Officer cannot make addition u/e 68 of act if the assessee proves ;  Identity  Creditworthiness and  Genuineness of transaction. In the present case, AO has made an addition of Rs. 73,89,650/- towards unexplained investment u/s 68 of the act, even though all the above mentioned conditions are satisfied. 8.7. We would like to place

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZARA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act. Once the\ninitial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts\nto the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case,\nalthough the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved\nall three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the\nAssessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit\nonly

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S.PVK ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Pvk Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcp 9391Dm (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2021

195 (SC) 2. Vaishnodevi Refooils & Solvex, 96 Taxman.com 469 (SC) :- 9 -: PVK Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 3. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd., 116 Taxamann.com 4. Orissa Corp. (P) Ltd., 25 Taxman 80F (SC) 5. Samyu Glass (P) Ltd., ITA No. 1218/Hyd/2015. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders

BALJIT KAUR ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Pan – Ajxpk 8087H Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2021

68 of the Act, the Court held that: :- 8 -: Baljit Kaur, Hyd. "The obtaining factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncement of law. In the case at hand, as is evincible, the assessing officer was aware of the existence of four companies with whom the assessee had entered into transaction. Both the orders clearly

MASINENI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.346/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Masineni Hotels Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Limited Anantpur Anantapur [Pan : Aahcm6211F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,35,48,000/- Being The Difference In The Share Capital, Share Application & Other Loan Subscribed / Given By Managing Director Shri M.Ramaiah U/S 68 Of The Income Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), 1961 (The Act).

section 68 of the Act, once, identity is proved, then no additions can be made towards any sum received from shareholder or creditor and further, if at all, the appellant is not able to prove the genuineness of transactions and the creditworthiness of the parties, then the sum received from the creditors may be assessed in the hands

FARMAX INDIA LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

section 35D(2) of the I.T.Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 14. Grounds of appeal No. 4 and 5 relate to the order of the ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition