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 I.T. Act, 1961. Further, as narrated by the Assessing Officer, the appellant firm Page 39 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings was incorporated on 31.01.2014. The firm has acquired the property by way of 3 registered sale deeds on 11.2.2014. In other words, the firm has acquired the property

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 I.T. Act, 1961. Further, as narrated by the Assessing Officer, the appellant firm Page 39 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings was incorporated on 31.01.2014. The firm has acquired the property by way of 3 registered sale deeds on 11.2.2014. In other words, the firm has acquired the property

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

6. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of provisions of section 68 of the Act, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards loans claimed to have received from MS. Sonali Gupta and other 3 companies as unexplained crash credit under section 68

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)

6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee company and also taking note of the reasons given by the A.O. to treat the unsecured loans taken from the related parties, observed that, although the assessee company has filed a number of documents, but the same are of no use, since those documents are without particulars

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

6. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has charged the higher rate of taxes as provided u/s 115BBE of the Act despite the fact that the amendment in the Act came into effect from 01.04.2005. For these purposes, he has drawn our attention to para 3.5 of the order passed by the Assessing

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

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld.CIT-DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards advance received from AGEVIPL for the sale of shares of Ramesh Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., without appreciating the fact that the AO has brought

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,23,313/- before setting-off of brought forward business losses. After setting off the losses brought forward from the earlier years, the Gross Total Income in terms of Section 80A of the Act was NIL. Accordingly, the assessee could not have claimed any deduction under Part-C of Chapter VI-A of the Act, because

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

6 -: ITA Nos. 456, 457 & 458/Hyd/2020 • Decision of the ITAT- Kolkata, in the case of Sri Dolarrai Hemani Vs. ITO, Kolkata Vide ITA No. 19/KoI/2014, where in it was held that "…….. the addition has been made only on the basis of the suspicion that the difference in purchase and sale price of these shares is unusually high- The revenue

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

6 -: ITA Nos. 456, 457 & 458/Hyd/2020 • Decision of the ITAT- Kolkata, in the case of Sri Dolarrai Hemani Vs. ITO, Kolkata Vide ITA No. 19/KoI/2014, where in it was held that "…….. the addition has been made only on the basis of the suspicion that the difference in purchase and sale price of these shares is unusually high- The revenue

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

6 -: ITA Nos. 456, 457 & 458/Hyd/2020 • Decision of the ITAT- Kolkata, in the case of Sri Dolarrai Hemani Vs. ITO, Kolkata Vide ITA No. 19/KoI/2014, where in it was held that "…….. the addition has been made only on the basis of the suspicion that the difference in purchase and sale price of these shares is unusually high- The revenue

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

6. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements as had been pressed into service by the Ld. Authorised Representatives

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

6 are general in nature and hence there is no\nneed of separate adjudication. Ground No.2 is raised against the\naddition amounting to Rs.74,92,000 made u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D. During\nassessment proceedings assessee was asked to furnish monthly\naver ages of the opening and closing balances of the value of\ninvestment. Details of investments are as follows

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

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

6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that: - (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the charge levied U/s. 201(1) of the Act for Rs.2,74,18,600 towards non-deduction of tax U/s. 195

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

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

6 -: PVK Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 6.2 The AO observed that the assessee had not given the investor-wise break up of share application money of Rs. 5,50,05,645/- as on 01-04-2012. The assessee furnished the names of the investors from whom the assessee company had received the amount and also filed the confirmation letters

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

195 (SC) 6. PCIT Vs. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd (2022) 143 taxmann.com 209. 7. PCIT Vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd (2021) 129 taxmann.com 87 (SC). 8. Per contra, the ld.AR had submitted that in the Profit and Loss account, the assessee had only debited a total sum of Rs.68,26,342/- as expenses and out of the said amount

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

6 -: Baljit Kaur, Hyd. “17. Even in the instant case, it is projected by the Revenue that the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) had purportedly found such a racket of floating bogus companies with sole purpose of landing entries. But, it is unfortunate that all this exercise is going in vain as few more steps which should have been taken