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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice

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

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

Section 144 r.w.s 153A of the Act, dated 12/12/2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 36,14,47,165/-, i.e., after making three additions viz., (i) unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act (as admitted in the course of the search proceedings): Rs. 35,16,93,754/-; (ii) unexplained investment towards stamp duty and other charges

BANDI SUDHEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Section equally, cannot be said to be attracted. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the compromise deed shows that the agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney are confirmed, and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is reduced from the total consideration of Rs.6.10 crores. Clause 3 of the said compromise deed confirms that

VENKAT RAJASEKHAR KONERU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Section equally, cannot be said to be attracted. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the compromise deed shows that the agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney are confirmed, and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is reduced from the total consideration of Rs.6.10 crores. Clause 3 of the said compromise deed confirms that

PRAMOD REDDY TEKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Section equally, cannot be said to be attracted. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the compromise deed shows that the agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney are confirmed, and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is reduced from the total consideration of Rs.6.10 crores. Clause 3 of the said compromise deed confirms that

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 2(47) of I.T. Act. Thus the intention of the parties to the agreement was clear that the agreement was only for carrying out development work and not for sale of the land in question. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement, the owners of the land were having

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 2(47) of I.T. Act. Thus the intention of the parties to the agreement was clear that the agreement was only for carrying out development work and not for sale of the land in question. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement, the owners of the land were having

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

68. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that the creditworthiness of the lender company is proved. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in accepting the genuineness of the transact-on. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Vodafone International Holding (341 ITRI) is wrong

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

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

Section 68 of the Act. The sum and substance of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that once the initial burden is discharged by filing relevant evidences, then the AO can proceed to reopen the assessment of the creditors in accordance with law, but sum received from the creditor cannot be regarded as income

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

47. We shall now deal with the claim of the revenue that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,85,88,450/- made by the AO under section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company. 48. Ostensibly, the AO had disallowed the claim for deduction under section

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

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68 of the Act. 21. For the sake of completeness and ready reference, I deem it just and necessary to reproduce the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Court hereunder: “49. An investigation is commenced when allegations crops up regarding tax evasion. The Income-tax department was nowhere in the picture when the assessees effected purchase of the shares