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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that although the appellant claimed that the stamp duty and other charges has been paid out of amount received from partners, but the identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors from whom the amount was received was not proved. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that although the appellant claimed that the stamp duty and other charges has been paid out of amount received from partners, but the identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors from whom the amount was received was not proved. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

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. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under. “43. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In this appeal revenue challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) raising two ground effectively dealing with the deletion of addition of Rs.1,75,00,364/-. The revenue state that

MAMATHA GUBBALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

68,733/-. However, no\nreturn of income was filed by the appellant for the A.Y.2019-20. Notice\nu/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 was issued on 25.03.2023 by the\nLd. AO, but no response was received. After issuing several notices,\nthe Ld AO completed the assessment at Rs. 35,54,387/- Aggrieved to\nit, the appellant is in present

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

68 of the Act by recharacterizing the same as an addition under Section 69A of the Act, without validly putting the assessee to notice on his said purported course of action during the appellate proceedings. 20. We are of a firm conviction that though, the CIT(A), as per section 251

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

68 of the Act is not in accordance with law and untenable.” 19. The details of the share application money received during the relevant assessment year for Rs. 311,88,97,960/- from the five parties mentioned herein above as extracted from the written submission of the Ld. AR is not disputed. From the first remand report

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

68 of the Act is not in accordance with law and untenable.” 19. The details of the share application money received during the relevant assessment year for Rs. 311,88,97,960/- from the five parties mentioned herein above as extracted from the written submission of the Ld. AR is not disputed. From the first remand report

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, the assessee needs to prove the identity of the investor company, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the investor company. Further, the assessee also needs to prove the source of source of the investor company. Once the assessee proves the identity, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the creditor, then the onus

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 regarding unsecured loans: Rs.38,30,75,528/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who allowed the same and vacated all the aforementioned three additions that were made by the AO. 8. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before

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

section 68 with applicable tax rates is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal enumerated in the forgoing paragraph 2 are dismissed. 6. In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Order passed u/s 250 r.w.s 251

SHREE ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.469/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Estates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14(1) Pan:Adifs9997B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 आदेश/Order

68 of the act, which is assessable under Chapter VI, whereas provisions of section 45(4) is fall under Chapter VI and thus, the same is not permissible in terms of section 251

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

251 (1) (a) of the act is prohibited on the issues which have not at all been considered by the AO during assessment proceedings. This gives the common understanding that the CIT (A) cannot enhance income of the 39 ITA.Nos.382 & 472/Hyd./2025 assessee on altogether ‘new Source ‘. Since, it is an undisputed fact that, the two issues in respect

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the aforesaid claim of the assessee firm with a liberty to the latter to substantiate its claim in the course of the set aside proceedings, therefore, we find no justification to dislodge the said well

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the aforesaid claim of the assessee firm with a liberty to the latter to substantiate its claim in the course of the set aside proceedings, therefore, we find no justification to dislodge the said well

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE, HYDREABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

251 (1) (a) of the act is\nprohibited on the issues which have not at all been considered by\nthe AO during assessment proceedings. This gives the common\nunderstanding that the CIT (A) cannot enhance income of the\nassessee on altogether ‘new Source ‘. Since, it is an undisputed\nfact that, the two issues in respect of which, the learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

251 (2) of the Act for enhancement of income of the Appellant. 4.4. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that there are no sums found credited in the books of account during the previous year and accordingly, the pre-requisite of section 68

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

251 (2) of the Act for enhancement of income of the Appellant. 4.4. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that there are no sums found credited in the books of account during the previous year and accordingly, the pre-requisite of section 68

M/S MADHUPALA ESTATES PVT. LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 Madhupala Estates (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 16(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccm3943R Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

68 of the Act, the assessee is required to explain about the nature and source thereof to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer/CIT (A). In the present case, the above aspect namely genuineness, creditworthiness etc., were not examined by the lower authorities. In view of the above, we remand this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

251 (Surat-Trib.) and submitted\nthat the Tribunal has considered an identical issue and held\nthat once the transactions of sales are duly recorded in the\nbooks of accounts, then the addition made by the Assessing\nOfficer u/sec.69A of the Act towards the cash deposit during\nthe demonetization period is not sustainable in law as the\nscope of sec.69A