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

section 68. 15. CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706 (All) is a Division Bench authority of this court wherein it has been laid down that if there are cash credit entries in the books of the assessee-firm in which accounts of an individual partner exists, and it is found as a fact that the cash

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

section 68. 15. CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706 (All) is a Division Bench authority of this court wherein it has been laid down that if there are cash credit entries in the books of the assessee-firm in which accounts of an individual partner exists, and it is found as a fact that the cash

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

33,070/- A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted in the case of Yashoda Group on 22.12.2020, during which the case of the assessee was also covered. In response to notice u/s. 153A of the I.T.Act,the assessee filed his return of income admitting additional 2 Devender Rao Gorukanti income of Rs.5

SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 68 cannot\nbe applied to the sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be\nasked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of\nsundry creditors which was upheld by the Tribunal.\n\n11.\nIn the case of Manju Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer\n(Supra), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated\n23/11/2020

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

33. Ld CIT(A) in his order had dealt with the retraction as under :- “4.2. However, later vide letter dated' 01-11- 2017(Annexure-7), ,Sri Nitin Gupta retracted the statement given and submitted the true facts to the Assessing Officer. The same, in brief, are as under: f) After the demonetization was announced, the Appellant saw a business opportunity

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

33. Ld CIT(A) in his order had dealt with the retraction as under :- “4.2. However, later vide letter dated' 01-11- 2017(Annexure-7), ,Sri Nitin Gupta retracted the statement given and submitted the true facts to the Assessing Officer. The same, in brief, are as under: f) After the demonetization was announced, the Appellant saw a business opportunity

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

33. Ld CIT(A) in his order had dealt with the retraction as under :- “4.2. However, later vide letter dated' 01-11- 2017(Annexure-7), ,Sri Nitin Gupta retracted the statement given and submitted the true facts to the Assessing Officer. The same, in brief, are as under: f) After the demonetization was announced, the Appellant saw a business opportunity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

33. Ld CIT(A) in his order had dealt with the retraction as under :- “4.2. However, later vide letter dated' 01-11- 2017(Annexure-7), ,Sri Nitin Gupta retracted the statement given and submitted the true facts to the Assessing Officer. The same, in brief, are as under: f) After the demonetization was announced, the Appellant saw a business opportunity

JASPER AUTO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,33,000/-_ made towards Long Term Capital Gains. 2 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that in the appellant's case, there was a slump sale within the meaning of section

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 is completely unwarranted in the given facts of the present case, and hence the same is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, concise Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal mentioned herein above is held in favour of the assessee. 32. Ground No.2: Addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on the notional gain arising

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

Section 68 of the Act is completely unwarranted in the given facts of the present case, and hence the same is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, concise Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal mentioned herein above is held in favour of the assessee. 32. Ground No.2: Addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on the notional gain arising

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 sum and substance of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that once the initial burden is discharged by filing relevant evidences, then the AO can proceed to reopen the assessment of the creditors in accordance with law, but sum received from the creditor cannot be regarded as income

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

33. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w section 144B of the Act, dated 03.09.2021, determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. 161,11,36,087/- under the normal provisions and “book profit” under section 115JB at Rs. 231,31,26,864/- after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance under

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 68 of the Act. So also he made an addition of Rs. 1,33,12,000/- and Rs.40

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 68 of the Act. So also he made an addition of Rs. 1,33,12,000/- and Rs.40

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,33,979/-during the financial year 2012-13. Considering the facts of the case and also the provisions of section

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

33,600/-; and (ii). other than cash credits: Rs. 56,76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

33,600/-; and (ii). other than cash credits: Rs. 56,76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

33,600/-; and (ii). other than cash credits: Rs. 56,76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68