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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

Section 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

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

Section 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

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

Section 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

ANITA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

Section 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

PREMLATA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

Section 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

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

Section 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

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

Section 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

HARIYANA STEEL CENTRE (KDM) PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 68 is very widely worded and an ITO is not precluded from making an enquiry as to the true nature and source thereof even if the same is credited as receipt of share application money." 5.3 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Income Tax (Osd), Hyderabad Circle-5(1) / [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Vs [Erstwhile Circle-16(1)] [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर / Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.N. Murthy, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Challenging The Order(S) Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Cit(A)”) In The Case Of Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy (“The Assessee”) For

801/- added under section 69A of the Act and Rs. 2.35 crores added under section 68 of the Act and such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY ,HYDERABAD , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Income Tax (Osd), Hyderabad Circle-5(1) / [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Vs [Erstwhile Circle-16(1)] [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर / Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.N. Murthy, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Challenging The Order(S) Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Cit(A)”) In The Case Of Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy (“The Assessee”) For

801/- added under section 69A of the Act and Rs. 2.35 crores added under section 68 of the Act and such

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 11B/r/w11 (4) of the Act. The details of the 244 entities are as follows”. And vide para 8 of the order there is direction of revocation. Thus, SEBI also did not find any prima facie material for manipulation of price of scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Limited. Further it is to submit that if A.O. has found that

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 11B/r/w11 (4) of the Act. The details of the 244 entities are as follows”. And vide para 8 of the order there is direction of revocation. Thus, SEBI also did not find any prima facie material for manipulation of price of scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Limited. Further it is to submit that if A.O. has found that

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 11B/r/w11 (4) of the Act. The details of the 244 entities are as follows”. And vide para 8 of the order there is direction of revocation. Thus, SEBI also did not find any prima facie material for manipulation of price of scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Limited. Further it is to submit that if A.O. has found that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,32,843 from export turnover not `derived `from export activity, without considering the foreign exchange fluctuation loss and considering only the net foreign exchange gain of Rs.63,66,53,406. 23. The Hon'ble CIT(A) in para 12 of its order held that the assessee had loss in realisation of export proceeds due to foreign exchange fluctuation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL vs. VASAVI BULLION CORPORATION , KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ito,Ward-2 V M/S Vasavi Bullion 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan S. Corporation N.R.Pet 28/B2, K.S.Complex Opp:Childresn Park Sharoff Bazar, Kurnool-518 001 Kurnool-518 001

68 under the facts and circumstances of the case? 3) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that cash deposit in bank should be explained by assessee, otherwise it is unexplained income u/s.69 or 69 B as held by Supreme Court in the case of Cit Vs K.Chinnathamban (SC) 232 ITR 682 and also ITAT, Special bench, Delhi held the same

MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 68 un-explained cash credits vide following detailed discussion: :- 3 -: :- 4 -: :- 5 -: :- 6 -: :- 7 -: :- 8 -: :- 9 -: :- 10 -: :- 11 -: :- 12 -: :- 13 -: :- 14 -: :- 15 -: :- 16 -: 4. Learned counsel vehemently contended during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned un-explained cash credits addition involving various un-secured

SUBHASH KUMAR KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been

BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

801 443 2,909 86,13,100 6 7 467 12,404 17,120 1,320 373 3,314 84,