ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

67 Taxman 532 (SC) Supreme Court of India in the case of Emil Webber Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax' and "[2003] 130 Taxman 82 (Andhra Pradesh) High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Action for Welfare & Awakening in Rural Environment (AWARE) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax" wherein it was held that mere mentioning of a wrong provision

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IRFANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

67 Taxman 532 (SC) Supreme Court of India in the case of Emil Webber Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax' and "[2003] 130 Taxman 82 (Andhra Pradesh) High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Action for Welfare & Awakening in Rural Environment (AWARE) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax" wherein it was held that mere mentioning of a wrong provision

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 also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be 'unlawful'. Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence

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 also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be 'unlawful'. Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence

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 also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be 'unlawful'. Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence

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 also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be 'unlawful'. Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence

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

section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company. 48. Ostensibly, the AO had disallowed the claim for deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company, on the ground that CSR expenditure is mandatory and hence donations made therefrom cannot be regarded as voluntary. 49. On appeal

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

SRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

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

67,375/- under section 68 of the Act, insofar as this appeal is concerned. 3. During the course of assessment

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

section 68 of the Act towards unexplained credits in bank and Rs.68,21,680/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

section 68 of the Act towards unexplained credits in bank and Rs.68,21,680/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

section 68 of the Act towards unexplained credits in bank and Rs.68,21,680/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

section 68 of the Act towards unexplained credits in bank and Rs.68,21,680/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67

VISHAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing