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

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

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

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, is erroneous and untenable. 3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the evidence filed in support of the appellants plea that the said addition is unwarranted. 2 Agarwal Industries Pvt.Ltd. 4. In any event the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred is not appreciating that the said cash credit did not result

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

section 68 of the Act: Rs. 43,43,207/-; (iv) addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act: Rs.16

SHYAMPRASAD REDDY GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

68 of the Act as an addition under Section 69A of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the CIT(A) had failed to put the assessee to notice about the aforesaid recharacterization of the addition, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR to buttress

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

section 43(5) of the Act, the payment of CTT is a pre conditions. As no CTT has been paid on the said F & O transactions, the transactions undertaken by the assessee will be in the nature speculative in nature. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the assessee on this count also. 5.6 Hence the Ground No.2

DUGGINNIGARI SUBRAMANIYAM NAIDU,TIRUPATI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. AO.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. Coming back to cash deposits into Union Bank of India account 435904050000030 for Rs. 43

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

43. Admittedly, it is an undisputed fact that an exempt income of Rs. 13.20 crore was earned by the assessee company during the year under consideration. However, the earning of exempt income by the assessee company, by itself, does not automatically warrant the application of Rule 8D. Section 14A(2) of the Act mandates that the AO must record

CURIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(AFTER MERGER AMRI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,51,876 Total Purchase Value 40,42,54,875 4,51,30,163 The assessee had submitted a copy of audited financial statement of M/s. Ariane Orgachem Pvt.Ltd as on 31.03.2007. The audited financial statements had not been submitted in respect of M/s. Ferico Laboratories Ltd. The assessee had not submitted any valuation report and thus had failed

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68,790/- and Rs.75,34,379/- respectively, and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.552,16,73,095/-. Page 3 of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly

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

43,12,000/- for the assessment year 2014-15 and trade payables of Rs. 42,87,807/- for the assessment year 2015-16. 4. On verification of the material that was produced before him by the assessee in respect of the share applications and also the short-term borrowings and trade payables, learned Assessing Officer did not believe the version

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

43,12,000/- for the assessment year 2014-15 and trade payables of Rs. 42,87,807/- for the assessment year 2015-16. 4. On verification of the material that was produced before him by the assessee in respect of the share applications and also the short-term borrowings and trade payables, learned Assessing Officer did not believe the version

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

68 nor the provisions of section 69 are applicable. He submitted that the said amount was never received as the income of the assessee and the seized material also does not provide any such information. Therefore, the amount cannot be added and hence should be deleted. 40. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavy relied on the order

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

68 nor the provisions of section 69 are applicable. He submitted that the said amount was never received as the income of the assessee and the seized material also does not provide any such information. Therefore, the amount cannot be added and hence should be deleted. 40. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavy relied on the order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

68 nor the provisions of section 69 are applicable. He submitted that the said amount was never received as the income of the assessee and the seized material also does not provide any such information. Therefore, the amount cannot be added and hence should be deleted. 40. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavy relied on the order

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

68 nor the provisions of section 69 are applicable. He submitted that the said amount was never received as the income of the assessee and the seized material also does not provide any such information. Therefore, the amount cannot be added and hence should be deleted. 40. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavy relied on the order

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

68 nor the provisions of section 69 are applicable. He submitted that the said amount was never received as the income of the assessee and the seized material also does not provide any such information. Therefore, the amount cannot be added and hence should be deleted. 40. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavy relied on the order