DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

4), the assessee is required to file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) and further, the audit report, as required under Section :10: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & 80IA(7), should be submitted along with the return of income. In this regard, she relied upon the decision

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

68. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that the creditworthiness of the lender company is proved. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in accepting the genuineness of the transact-on. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Vodafone International Holding (341 ITRI) is wrong

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

4 Spectra Equipments Pvt. Ltd. years. In support, the appellant produced cash book for the year and other details like Bank Account Statement, I.T. Return, Financial statements etc It is the contention of the appellant that the amounts has already been offered for taxation as sales proceeds during the previous years and taxing them again will amount to double taxation

SHYAMPRASAD REDDY GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

Section 144 r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 12/12/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam vs. DCIT 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. “The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that:- “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 4,42,69,513/- invoking the provisions of section 68

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

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

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

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

250 54 0 54 64 1440.5 940 420 500.5 49.5 10 66 600 435 165 100 65 Total 450.46 38. From the perusal of the above Chart, it is clear that Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy had agreed for settlement of the amount which has even not been received by the company. The total amount pending towards villa owners would come

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

250 54 0 54 64 1440.5 940 420 500.5 49.5 10 66 600 435 165 100 65 Total 450.46 38. From the perusal of the above Chart, it is clear that Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy had agreed for settlement of the amount which has even not been received by the company. The total amount pending towards villa owners would come

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

250 54 0 54 64 1440.5 940 420 500.5 49.5 10 66 600 435 165 100 65 Total 450.46 38. From the perusal of the above Chart, it is clear that Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy had agreed for settlement of the amount which has even not been received by the company. The total amount pending towards villa owners would come

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

250 54 0 54 64 1440.5 940 420 500.5 49.5 10 66 600 435 165 100 65 Total 450.46 38. From the perusal of the above Chart, it is clear that Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy had agreed for settlement of the amount which has even not been received by the company. The total amount pending towards villa owners would come

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

250 54 0 54 64 1440.5 940 420 500.5 49.5 10 66 600 435 165 100 65 Total 450.46 38. From the perusal of the above Chart, it is clear that Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy had agreed for settlement of the amount which has even not been received by the company. The total amount pending towards villa owners would come

TUMU RAJKUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required