BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SRB HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

249(4)(b). Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on this count. VII) Ground Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in appeal relates to issues of notice u/s 148 and completion of assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. From the facts and circumstances brought out in the assessment order, it is apparent that the provisions of Section

SRB HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

249(4)(b). Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on this count. VII) Ground Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in appeal relates to issues of notice u/s 148 and completion of assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. From the facts and circumstances brought out in the assessment order, it is apparent that the provisions of Section

PREMLATA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing

ANITA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing

SAJJAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing

SAJJANRAJ JAIN & WIFE (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

249(4)(a), ignoring the fact that the assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by it.\n2. Alternatively and without prejudice to ground no.1, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.3,89,56,740/-.\n3. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2014 dated

VALUELABS TECHNOLOGIES,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 taxmann.com 188 2. Sri G.V. Arjun Goud Vs. ITO, 1939/Hyd/2017 3. ITO Vs. Shri Rajeevkumar N. , 4. ACIT Vs. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social welfare Trust, [2019] 106 taxmann.com 249 :- 5 -: M/s Value Labs Technologies, Hyd. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

68 of the Act in view of failure of assessee in proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 17.09.2021, assessing the total income at Rs.1,42,88,670/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal

NIRAJITA MITRA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 after a period of 30 days, then the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) was not empowered to condone the delay in filing the requisite form. As per clause 4 of section 270AA of the Act, it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer to mandatorily pass order accepting or rejecting such application, if filed by the assessee

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...

249/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee\ncompany was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. Notice\nunder section 143(2), dated 09.08.2018, was issued to the assessee.\n3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was\nobserved by the A.O. that the assessee company had deposited cash\nin its bank accounts during the demonetization period, i.e.,\n09.11.2016

QADEER AHMED MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 26.09.2022.5. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee 4 Qadeer Ahmed Mohammed admitted that, there was a delay

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 :

4. The Ld.CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the shares purchased by the assessee company for a price lower than the FMV of the shares, does not attract provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and accordingly deleting the addition of Rs.5, 14,80,879/-. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing

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