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

40A(3) upon themselves. Hence, realisation of cash from them is illogical and appears to be fabricated by the appellant in its books of accounts. 5.6. On examination of the Balance Sheet of the appellant, it is seen that Trade receivables on 31.12.2016 is Rs. 2,18,73,573 and that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. BHARAT FINANCIAL INCLUSION LIMITED(FORMERLY SKS MICROFINANCE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2021

section 43B of the Act for provision made for an approved gratuity fund of Rs. 50,07,765/- which is deductible u/s 40A(7) of the Act. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 907/Hyd/2019 & 252/H/18 Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd., Hyd. 7.4 Following the conclusions drawn at para 7.2 in respect of Revenue’ appeal (supra), we set aside the order

BHARAT FINANCIAL INCLUSION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2021

section 43B of the Act for provision made for an approved gratuity fund of Rs. 50,07,765/- which is deductible u/s 40A(7) of the Act. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 907/Hyd/2019 & 252/H/18 Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd., Hyd. 7.4 Following the conclusions drawn at para 7.2 in respect of Revenue’ appeal (supra), we set aside the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB (I) LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,613 as paid in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the payment in question were below Rs.20,000 on different

M/S COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,613 as paid in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the payment in question were below Rs.20,000 on different

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

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

68,613 as paid in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the payment in question were below Rs.20,000 on different

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

68,613 as paid in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the payment in question were below Rs.20,000 on different

SURYANARAYANA GANDLA,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 1, ANANTAPUR.

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1122/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Suryanarayana Gandla, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tax, Circle-1, Anantapur. Anantapur. Pan: Abipg4005A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasaad, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. :

40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 19.12.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,18,39,680/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL vs. B.NAGA MAHESH , KURNOOL

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. B. Naga Mahesh, Kurnool. Ward – 2, Kurnool. Pan – Aaopb 7734L

68,800/- and assessee had no other known sources for the cash deposits. The AO completed the assessment without carrying out any verification for the source of these cash deposits.” 2.2 Aggrieved with the order of CIT, the assessee contested before Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench 'A'. The Hon'ble ITAT passed an order in ITA No.936/HYD/2014, dated.18.02.2015 allowing grounds

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal I

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

40A(3) of the Act cannot be sustained. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.14,24,997/-. 23. Coming back to the balance amount of Rs.98,62,500/-. Although, the assessee claims that the said transaction has not materialized due to project being held

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,32,282/- and Section 68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,32,282/- and Section 68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,32,282/- and Section 68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,32,282/- and Section 68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,32,282/- and Section 68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,32,282/- and Section 68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,32,282/- and Section 68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions