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

76,77 and (3. Mamidipaly Village. Saroornagar Mandal, RR District as evidenced by page no 171 of seized material marked as Annexure A/SO-2/0FF/01. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in directing to treat the amount of Rs. 2.01.82.000/- as business income when the same

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

76,77 and (3. Mamidipaly Village. Saroornagar Mandal, RR District as evidenced by page no 171 of seized material marked as Annexure A/SO-2/0FF/01. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in directing to treat the amount of Rs. 2.01.82.000/- as business income when the same

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

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

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

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

LALITHA PADMAJA THALLAPALLI,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

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

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

76,417/- by making various additions including addition towards loan creditors of Rs. 36,37,100/- under Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

76 Taxmann.com 109/162 lTD 285 ITAT Kolkata. Section 68. read with section 133 of the income-tax Act. 1961 Cash

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

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Sabitha Anand Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hospital, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Abwfs9326E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital In The Name Of M/S. Sabitha Anand Hospitals. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,70,540/-. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 27.9.2016. Consequent To The Survey Operation, The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Of Page 1 Of 17

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee

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

68 of the Act. As a result ground no 5 is allowed. 7. In result, the appeal is allowed.” 6. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record

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