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

Sections 68 to 69D deem certain unexplained cash credits, unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion or jewellery or unexplained expenditure as income

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

Sections 68 to 69D deem certain unexplained cash credits, unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion or jewellery or unexplained expenditure as income

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

unexplained and cannot be added under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee-firm..." 18. The issue relating to addition under Section 68 also came up in Commissioner of Income Tax v Pragati Co-operative Bank Limited5, and taking note of the language of Section 68 it was held that the word "may" indicates that

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

unexplained and cannot be added under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee-firm..." 18. The issue relating to addition under Section 68 also came up in Commissioner of Income Tax v Pragati Co-operative Bank Limited5, and taking note of the language of Section 68 it was held that the word "may" indicates that

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

unexplained and cannot be added under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee-firm..." 18. The issue relating to addition under Section 68 also came up in Commissioner of Income Tax v Pragati Co-operative Bank Limited5, and taking note of the language of Section 68 it was held that the word "may" indicates that

ANJANEE VIJETHA KASTURI,KURNOOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

money, investment, expenditure etc., it was deemed as income under section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of the Act. He, therefore submits that learned CIT(A) rightly observed that when once certain income was brought to light in the course of proceedings under section 133A of the Act, it would necessarily be unexplained

SHYAMPRASAD REDDY GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

money under Section 69A of the Act and could not have been assessed as his unexplained cash credits under Section 68

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)

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 16. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 6 of the assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs. 38,42,000/- made by the A.O. under Section 69A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 towards cash deposit into the bank account during the demonetization period as unexplained money

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act, towards unexplained loan. 22. As we have already allowed the assessee’s legal ground, the adjudication of the remaining grounds will be merely academic in nature and thus, becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the remaining grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 is allowed. 24. Coming

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act, towards unexplained loan. 22. As we have already allowed the assessee’s legal ground, the adjudication of the remaining grounds will be merely academic in nature and thus, becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the remaining grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 is allowed. 24. Coming

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act, towards unexplained loan. 22. As we have already allowed the assessee’s legal ground, the adjudication of the remaining grounds will be merely academic in nature and thus, becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the remaining grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 is allowed. 24. Coming

GUPTA ASHOK KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer are as under : “2.6. On verification of the assessee's explanation, the transaction between the assesse and his son Sri Bhupesh Gupta to the extent of Rs.2,00,00,000/-is supported with necessary confirmation, bank statements and identity particulars of Sri Bhupesh Gupta. The assessee's claim

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68

VIVA BOARDS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

money received from certain persons cannot be accepted and accordingly treated them as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Learned

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

money was withdrawn from firm M/s. Supreme Agro which was given in cash to M/s. Adithya Construction Ltd which was later on returned to appellant. 6. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellants claim that section 69B is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition though same amount has been

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

money was withdrawn from firm M/s. Supreme Agro which was given in cash to M/s. Adithya Construction Ltd which was later on returned to appellant. 6. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellants claim that section 69B is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition though same amount has been

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

money was withdrawn from firm M/s. Supreme Agro which was given in cash to M/s. Adithya Construction Ltd which was later on returned to appellant. 6. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellants claim that section 69B is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition though same amount has been

RAGHUNATH REDDY GANGARAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

unexplained money under Section 69A and also treated the amount of Rs.40,68,000/- as unexplained money chargeable under Section