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

68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before

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

68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his\norder passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated\n26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-.\n5.\nAggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal\nbefore

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

256(1) of the Act in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Kishorilal Santoshilal13, and referring to the language used under Section 68 and various authorities on the point it was held that in this regard the following points are required to be noted:- Page

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

256(1) of the Act in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Kishorilal Santoshilal13, and referring to the language used under Section 68 and various authorities on the point it was held that in this regard the following points are required to be noted:- Page

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

256(1) of the Act in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Kishorilal Santoshilal13, and referring to the language used under Section 68 and various authorities on the point it was held that in this regard the following points are required to be noted:- Page

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

256,99,63,642 Between the service provider trust and the companies. Amount of expenditure incurred by the trust on behalf of the Rs. 318,41,02,723 assessee. Now the issue to be examined is that out of the amount of Rs.256.99 Crores paid to the companies what the assessee would have paid had the contracts been awarded

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

2 M/s Coolhut Marketing Private Limited 25,00,028/- 3 M/s Gabarial Tieup Private Limited 25,00,056/- 4 M/s Neelgagan Suppliers Private Limited 25,00,056/- 5 M/s Outlook Vintrade Private Limited 25,00,056/- 6. M/s. Subharashi Enclave Private Limited 25,00,056/- 7. M/s. Viewmore Developers Private Limited 25,00,056/- 47. In support of contention

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 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 in the case

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 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 in the case

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

68,370/-\nby an amount of Rs.7,58,13,772/-. Apart from that, the A.O.\ndeclined the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 of the\nAct on two grounds, viz. (i) the assessee had not purchased the new\nresidential house within two years from the date of transfer of the\noriginal asset; and (ii) the assessee owned

ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL, KURNOOL vs. S.V. MOHAN REDDY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 2(22)(e) should not be invoked for the year under consideration, the assessee vide his letter stated that the amount receivable in the hands of the company from the assessee is neither a loan nor an advance, it is a routine transaction which the company generally carries on and in the normal sense the assessee

MOHAMMED AZHAR,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2) by an Officer without jurisdiction is an invalid notice, therefore, the CIT erred in confirming the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A), which is based on an invalid notice, therefore further erred in confirming the section 68 of the IT Act amounting to Rs.83,25,256

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

2(24)(xviii) is wrong and bad in law and to be deleted. 4. That the provisions of section 28(iv) are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the assessee case, as there is no benefit or perquisite arising to the assessee hence the addition made invoking Section 28(iv) is wrong

VENU MYNENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

68 cannot be invoked in respect of cash deposits in bank account. Assessee also relied on decisions to contend that gift from father cannot be taxed as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Assessee also contended that withdrawals from NRE account were deposited into the NRO Account. Another contention of assessee was that there

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

JEEVAN POLYMERS (P) LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

256 CTR 34) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) where Honble

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

256 (Delhi.).\nii. Order of ITAT, Ahmedabad B-Bench, Ahmedabad\nin ITA.No.995/Ahd./2014 with CO.No.167/Ahd./\n2014, dated 06.01.2020.\n7\nITA.No.29/Hyd./2025\n5.1.\nlearned DR also relied upon the Orders of the\nauthorities below.\n6.\nWe have considered the rival submissions as well\nas the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer\nwhile framing the assessment u/sec.143

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

256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum\nand substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of\ntransactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then\nthe sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of\nthe assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing

IMAGE BROADCASTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1), HYDERABAD

2,75,89,500/- in the bank\naccounts during the year. The Ld AO has made the\nfollowing disallowances/additions:\n1) Adhoc 10 percent disallowance of the Other\nexpenses Rs.6,79,29,682/- u/s 37 without any\nbasis.\n2) Disal lowed the amount of Rs.2,80,95,113/- debited in\nthe profit and loss account under the head Changes in\ninventories.3