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 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, as narrated by the Assessing Officer, the appellant firm Page 39 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings was incorporated on 31.01.2014. The firm has acquired the property by way of 3 registered sale deeds on 11.2.2014. In other words, the firm has acquired the property

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 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, as narrated by the Assessing Officer, the appellant firm Page 39 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings was incorporated on 31.01.2014. The firm has acquired the property by way of 3 registered sale deeds on 11.2.2014. In other words, the firm has acquired the property

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68 without any valid reason even though it was accounted for as business income in the books of accounts of the appellant firm. 4. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s computation of tax u/s 115BBE. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68 without any valid reason even though it was accounted for as business income in the books of accounts of the appellant firm. 4. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s computation of tax u/s 115BBE. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68 without any valid reason even though it was accounted for as business income in the books of accounts of the appellant firm. 4. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s computation of tax u/s 115BBE. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68 and as such\nno fault could be found with the order of the Tribunal which\nhad endorsed the decision of Commissioner (Appeals). In\nMahabir Prasad Prem Chand Jain v. ITO (1988) 40 Taxman 35\n(Del- Trib )(Tax Mag), it was held that amounts found in the\nbooks of assessee were in existence much prior to the\nbeginning

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

40,11,50,000/- are treated as unexplained credits in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section

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

40,11,50,000/- are treated as unexplained credits in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section

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

40,11,50,000/- are treated as unexplained credits in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section

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

40,11,50,000/- are treated as unexplained credits in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section

ITO, WARD-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. R.K. INFRA & ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed

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

68,442/- Since the assessee has not deducted the tax on payments of interest to the above concerns and when the AO put the same before the assessee in the show cause notice, in reply, the assessee company relied on Board’s Circular and stated that the hire purchase transaction does not attract TDS provisions. The AO observed that

JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Jaya Balaji Real Media Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecb3005F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2024

Section 68 of the I.T. Act with respect to deposits in the Bank account. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the deposits in the Bank account are duly reflected in the Books of accounts and as such part of the Audited Balance Sheet. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

40(a) (ia) states that where the assessee fails\nto deduct the tax as per Chapter XVII-B, but is not deemed to be an assessee in default\nunder the first provisio to Section 201(1) then it shall be deemed that the assessee has\ndeducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Section 153A. The assessee and Revenue raised grounds of appeal concerning the validity of search proceedings, additions for unexplained cash credits, and disallowances related to TDS.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was bad in law as a valid search under Section 132 was not conducted. It also found that

SURYA PRABHA SUNKAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

40,30,297/- under section 68 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 77,809/- by making disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. C. I.T. Vs. Jaya Balajee Real Media Central Circle 2(3) P Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecb3005 F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3/Hyd/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaya Balajee Real Media P Vs. Dy. C. I.T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aaecb3005 F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.10.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Also Filed A C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

40(a)(ia). Similarly, out of the addition of Rs.4,26,39,844/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share application money u/s 68, he confirmed the addition of Rs.2,28,00,000/- and deleted the remaining amount. So far as the addition of Rs.48,85,500/-disallowed by the Assessing Officer out of the operational cost

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

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

MANNE HAREESH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Manne Hareesh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Sita Mansion, 1-10- Ward-6(2), 104/14, Mayur Marg, Hyderabad. Begumpet, Hyderabad. Pan: Admpm 6479 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri T. Ramamurthy, Ca Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to non-deduction of tax towards commission paid for selling products amounting to Rs. 47,50,000/- and towards accounting charges incurred of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Expenditure incurred for Rs. 47,50,000/-: 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. AO that