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 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

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 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

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

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the Ld. AR on few occasions upheld the order of the Ld. AO as he was also of the view that the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction have not been established. While arriving at such decision, he relied on the second remand report obtained from

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

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the Ld. AR on few occasions upheld the order of the Ld. AO as he was also of the view that the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction have not been established. While arriving at such decision, he relied on the second remand report obtained from

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

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

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

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

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

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

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

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

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

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR vs. DURGA GRANITES, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Durga Granites, Circle-1, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aagfd 8247 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 Order

71,00,000/- and Rs. 54,50,207/- is appropriated and utilized by the assessee firm and not by the partners of the assessee firm. At this juncture, it is very relevant to examine the provisions of section 68

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

68 of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, we\nuphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-. The Ground of appeal No. 5 raised by the revenue is\ndismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.\n29.\nResultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.\n1083/Hyd/2024

VENU MYNENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

71,964/- as unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act [Act]. 2.2. Aggrieved by the addition, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) appeal. During the course of proceedings, assessee filed Paper book on 24-08-2015 enclosing copy of affidavit from Sri Venu Myneni, details of deposits in NRO Account, details of withdrawals made from

SPA CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1132/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Spa Constructions Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Adffs5436E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Spa Constructions (“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 14.06.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

71,952/- is not established.” 8. On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. AO concluded that the partners lacked creditworthiness on the basis that their incomes declared in AYs 2016–17 and 2017–18 were insufficient. In this regard, we have gone through the details submitted by the partners containing the date wise payments made

JEEVAN POLYMERS (P) LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

71,24,000/- and the same was applied in the investment of Rs. 4,76,10,000/- . The above thus was a shell company having investments and there was no business apparatus in the company as there were no transactions but for the investments made through dubious security premium. It was also seen in the bank statement of the share

LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

68 of the Act. 9. On this aspect, Learned AR submitted that the authorities did not seek any explanation from the assessee after submitting the books even Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos.589/Hyd/2020, 96/Hyd/2021 C.O.No.6/Hyd/2021 the Learned CIT(A) also did not give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancies in the invoices, which according to them

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

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

68 of the Act. 9. On this aspect, Learned AR submitted that the authorities did not seek any explanation from the assessee after submitting the books even Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos.589/Hyd/2020, 96/Hyd/2021 C.O.No.6/Hyd/2021 the Learned CIT(A) also did not give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancies in the invoices, which according to them

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

71,090\n29\n1,773\n2,824\n2,08,360\n40,36,760\n30\n2,926\n5,920\n1,59,590\n66,03,590\n31\n2,600\n2,571\n1,49,640\n56,06,740\nTotal\n46,026\n1,18,467\n50,72,130 10,89,70,830\n18\nITA.No.29/Hyd./2025\n9.\nThus, it is clear that during