“unexplained expenditure”

Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Income Tax Officer 33, Ghanshyam Dube Chawl No. 2, Ward 30(2)(6), Deep Narayan Dube Road, Vs. Earlier Ward 24(2)(2), Pragatinagar, Dahisar (E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400068. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aizpp 6142 M Appellant Respondent

making additions of Rs. 2,14,003/- in the hands of the appellant on account of un account of unexplained Expenditure being 20% of total expenses explained Expenditure being 20% of total expenses claimed of Rs.10,70,019/ claimed of Rs.10,70,019/-. b) Your Appellant contends that the addition

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai-400020 vs. M/S. Abhijeet Dies and Tools P Ltd., Mumbai-400067

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2009-10

Assessing Officer based on such information has held that the entire bogus purchases of Rs.17,74,730/- needs to be added as unexplained expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) following the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 1430/Mum/2019 has restricted

Dy CIT-Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Jamil Ahmed Quireshi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 22(1), Vs. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Qureshi Piramal Chambers, Lal 102, Emerland Baug, Parel, Apartment, Near Dadar Mumbai-400012. Shakari Bank, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400055. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpq1063C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Dr Respondent By : Shri Dhaval Jariwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,40,78,000/- under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. (e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that though the deeds for the purchase shows that the plots ... above, it is respectfully submitted that the addition of Rs 1,40,78,000 which was made u/s 69C of the IT Act as unexplained expenditure in the Assessment Order dated 28/03/2013 as the assessee could not explain source of investment. Now at the appellate stage, the assessee has attempted

Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

account of non-genuine purchases, be deleted. 2. ADDITION OF Rs. 15,87,703/- BY TREATING PURCHASES FROM SOME PARTIES AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE a) The CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 15,87,703/- made by the AO in respect of the differences between amounts shown ... suppliers and amounts reflected in the books of the appellant by treating the same as unexplained expenditure. b) The appellant respectfully submits that alleged difference in purchases is on account timing difference of accounting the transaction by the supplier and by the appellant in their books of accounts. The reconciliations

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

account of non-genuine purchases, be deleted. 2. ADDITION OF Rs. 15,87,703/- BY TREATING PURCHASES FROM SOME PARTIES AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE a) The CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 15,87,703/- made by the AO in respect of the differences between amounts shown ... suppliers and amounts reflected in the books of the appellant by treating the same as unexplained expenditure. b) The appellant respectfully submits that alleged difference in purchases is on account timing difference of accounting the transaction by the supplier and by the appellant in their books of accounts. The reconciliations

DCIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Indiabulls Housing Finance Tax, Limited Central Circle–6(4) M–62 & 63, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, Vs. Air India Building, New Delhi 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci2612A Assessee By : Mr. Om Kandalkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs.70,000/-, the details of which were found in the Cash Transaction Record maintained in an excel sheet by Shri Ashok Indiabulls Housing ... rival contentions. We have also perused the orders of the lower authorities. Ground no.1 to 3 relates to the addition of ₹70,000/- as unexplained expenditure. We find that identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the identical

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

therefore required the assessee to explain its nature & source and why the same should not be added to the total income by way of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In response, the assessee had pointed out to the AO, that when confronted with these statements, Mr. Rajesh Sidhwani ... books; and accordingly he extrapolated the same across all seven AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 and added Rs.4,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in each of these years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeals before

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

therefore required the assessee to explain its nature & source and why the same should not be added to the total income by way of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In response, the assessee had pointed out to the AO, that when confronted with these statements, Mr. Rajesh Sidhwani ... books; and accordingly he extrapolated the same across all seven AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 and added Rs.4,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in each of these years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeals before

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

therefore required the assessee to explain its nature & source and why the same should not be added to the total income by way of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In response, the assessee had pointed out to the AO, that when confronted with these statements, Mr. Rajesh Sidhwani ... books; and accordingly he extrapolated the same across all seven AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 and added Rs.4,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in each of these years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeals before

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

therefore required the assessee to explain its nature & source and why the same should not be added to the total income by way of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In response, the assessee had pointed out to the AO, that when confronted with these statements, Mr. Rajesh Sidhwani ... books; and accordingly he extrapolated the same across all seven AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 and added Rs.4,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in each of these years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeals before

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

therefore required the assessee to explain its nature & source and why the same should not be added to the total income by way of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In response, the assessee had pointed out to the AO, that when confronted with these statements, Mr. Rajesh Sidhwani ... books; and accordingly he extrapolated the same across all seven AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 and added Rs.4,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in each of these years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeals before

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

therefore required the assessee to explain its nature & source and why the same should not be added to the total income by way of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In response, the assessee had pointed out to the AO, that when confronted with these statements, Mr. Rajesh Sidhwani ... books; and accordingly he extrapolated the same across all seven AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 and added Rs.4,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in each of these years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeals before