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

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

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)

68,414/- towards Travel Agent Commission. 21. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,57,069/- towards Programme Expenses Payable. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194J are not applicable to payments made

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)

68,414/- towards Travel Agent Commission. 21. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,57,069/- towards Programme Expenses Payable. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194J are not applicable to payments made

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

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

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

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

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 and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

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

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 and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

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

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 and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

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

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 and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

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

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 and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

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

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 and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

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

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 and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. FARMAX INDIA LTD., HYD, R.R.DIST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

68. It was further held that it is necessary to note that the business activities of share subscribers in order to ascertain whether they are financially sound and are able to purchase the shares for substantial amount. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt.Ltd. was also considered

FARMAX INDIA LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

68. It was further held that it is necessary to note that the business activities of share subscribers in order to ascertain whether they are financially sound and are able to purchase the shares for substantial amount. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt.Ltd. was also considered

KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

68 of the impugned order and the learned CIT(A) took a view that in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years since there is no change of circumstances either in the nature of development works undertaken by the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) placed