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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BANGAR RAJU PENMETSA,BHIMAVARAM vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), HYDERABAD

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

71. The assessee has not explained the transactions by filing relevant evidences. Therefore, the A.O. made additions of Rs. 43,50,000/- and Rs. 4,00,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

68 of the Act. 5.2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted at business premises of the assessee and during the survey proceedings, certain documents/loose sheets found at the business premises were impounded. Assessee company did not file its Return of Income for the A.Y.2014-15. Subsequently

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

71,68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited