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

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

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(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

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

216 CTR 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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. FARMAX INDIA LTD., HYD, R.R.DIST

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

MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 68 un-explained cash credits vide following detailed discussion: :- 3 -: :- 4 -: :- 5 -: :- 6 -: :- 7 -: :- 8 -: :- 9 -: :- 10 -: :- 11 -: :- 12 -: :- 13 -: :- 14 -: :- 15 -: :- 16 -: 4. Learned counsel vehemently contended during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned un-explained cash credits addition involving various un-secured

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 14A(2) and rule 8D. Accordingly, we direct the AO to determine the expenditure relevant for the exempt income. It is noted that only during this AY assessee has borrowed certain funds to make investment. Therefore, whatever the investment made by the assessee in the earlier years are out of interest free funds. The relevant expenditure should

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

216 89,350 49,38,950 6 78 1,034 2,941 56,420 9,45,520 7 169 7,

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

216/- as against the income shown at Rs.17,09,114/-. The AO has also added an amount of Rs. 54,54,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69C of the Act. The AO has further added an amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(3), HYDERABAD vs. MAITHILI FINANCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Maithili Financials Ward – 16(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccm 4074 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

section 68 of the Act and made addition thereon. 6. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) by relying on the decision rendered in the case CIT vs. Lovely Exports reported in 216

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the\nassessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove\notherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed\nrelevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68\nof the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained\ncash credit only

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only