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

81,47,548/ -. Schedule 6 reflects investment in shares of Rs.39,63,25,600/-. However the same would not reflect the investment in the above company. Assessment has been completed under section 153C rws 144 for Assessment Year 2010-11 dated 31/3/2013. The assessment order does not deal with investment in shares of the above assessee-company

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

81,47,548/ -. Schedule 6 reflects investment in shares of Rs.39,63,25,600/-. However the same would not reflect the investment in the above company. Assessment has been completed under section 153C rws 144 for Assessment Year 2010-11 dated 31/3/2013. The assessment order does not deal with investment in shares of the above assessee-company

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

81 crores to ACE Kakinada Hitech City Pvt. Ltd. out of the advance received from AGEVIPL for sale of shares of Ramesh Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd and ACE Kakinada Hitech City Pvt. Ltd to whom the advance has been given is into different business, and therefore, the assessee is not able to explain the circular transactions between various group companies

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.:

Section 68 or the income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit trade credits) Asst. year 2008-09 - All credits was trade credits and none of said credits was cash credit - Moreover, we had produced ledger details of trade creditors as well as confirmatory letter from major trade creditors Whether In view of aforesaid, impugned order of Commissioner (Appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ADHITHI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

81,284/- and short-term borrowings amounting to\nRs.10,37,246/-. Since the assessee did not furnish any\nconfirmation, explanation, or supporting documentary evidence\nwith respect to these borrowings, the Ld. AO treated the total\nborrowings aggregating to Rs.4,35,18,530/- as unexplained cash\ncredits within the meaning 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 uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,29,91,000/-. The Ground of appeal No. 5 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 29. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 1083/Hyd/2024

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

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

RAMESH SISTLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

81,000/- under section 68 of the Act, thereby\ndetermining the total income at Rs.13,00,94,230/-.\n\n5.\nAggrieved

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

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

81,000/- as unexplained withdrawal on the ground that the above amount is withdrawn from the Bank account of the assessee company and deposited in the accounts of various family members/group concern and the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the nature and purpose of such withdrawals. We find the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

81,000/- as unexplained withdrawal on the ground that the above amount is withdrawn from the Bank account of the assessee company and deposited in the accounts of various family members/group concern and the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the nature and purpose of such withdrawals. We find the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

81,000/- as unexplained withdrawal on the ground that the above amount is withdrawn from the Bank account of the assessee company and deposited in the accounts of various family members/group concern and the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the nature and purpose of such withdrawals. We find the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition

NANDAN CLEANTEC LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

81,000/- as unexplained withdrawal on the ground that the above amount is withdrawn from the Bank account of the assessee company and deposited in the accounts of various family members/group concern and the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the nature and purpose of such withdrawals. We find the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD vs. REJUVENTING APPROACHES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

81,000/- as unexplained withdrawal on the ground that the above amount is withdrawn from the Bank account of the assessee company and deposited in the accounts of various family members/group concern and the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the nature and purpose of such withdrawals. We find the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition