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

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

section 164 of Cr.PC. viii. The assessee had not filled any receipts issued by it in favour of seven persons as alleged by him in subsequent statement dated 20/11/2019. ix. It is not the case of the assessee that at the time of recording of statement during survey, seven person including Neel sunder were present and had pressurized

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

section 164 of Cr.PC. viii. The assessee had not filled any receipts issued by it in favour of seven persons as alleged by him in subsequent statement dated 20/11/2019. ix. It is not the case of the assessee that at the time of recording of statement during survey, seven person including Neel sunder were present and had pressurized

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

section 164 of Cr.PC. viii. The assessee had not filled any receipts issued by it in favour of seven persons as alleged by him in subsequent statement dated 20/11/2019. ix. It is not the case of the assessee that at the time of recording of statement during survey, seven person including Neel sunder were present and had pressurized

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

section 164 of Cr.PC. viii. The assessee had not filled any receipts issued by it in favour of seven persons as alleged by him in subsequent statement dated 20/11/2019. ix. It is not the case of the assessee that at the time of recording of statement during survey, seven person including Neel sunder were present and had pressurized

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon'Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon'Ble

68,000/- and the same shall be paid on different dates starting 5th day from the date of agreement and ending up to 31.03.2011. It was further stipulated in the said agreement that the company shall cause the Kondapur land and the documents in possession of M/s. Amsri Spires to be released to M/s. Amsri Principles and shall cause them

VIVA BOARDS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. 15. Briefly the facts are during the assessment proceedings, the A.O. while verifying the accounts of the assessee noticed that assessee has shown an amount of Rs.12,41

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

68,000/- and the same shall be paid on different dates starting 5th day from the date of agreement and ending up to 31.03.2011. It was further stipulated in the said agreement that the company shall cause the Kondapur land and the documents in possession of M/s. Amsri Spires to be released to M/s. Amsri Principles and shall cause them

SRINIVAS UPPU ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

SRINIVAS UPPU,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMRUT PRASAD PATNAM , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

P AMRUTH PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

P AMRUTHA PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD vs. REJUVENTING APPROACHES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

41,500/- in terms of section 68 of the I.T. Act. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

41,500/- in terms of section 68 of the I.T. Act. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

41,500/- in terms of section 68 of the I.T. Act. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

41,500/- in terms of section 68 of the I.T. Act. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

41,500/- in terms of section 68 of the I.T. Act. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition