DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

cash deposits during the period of demonetization with supporting documents. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under section 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 37,70,347/- on account of payment excess of Rs. 20,000/- to various parties ignoring the factual position as stated

ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

cash deposits during the period of demonetization with supporting documents. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under section 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 37,70,347/- on account of payment excess of Rs. 20,000/- to various parties ignoring the factual position as stated

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAKAR BHAVAN vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

deposits. The\ngrounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.\n8. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2018-19. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are\nreproduced as under:\n1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

deposits. The\ngrounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.\n8.\nNow, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2018-19. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are\nreproduced as under:\n1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

deposits. The\ngrounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.\n8. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2018-19. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are\nreproduced as under:\n1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw

AMIT LALIT KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Amit Lalit Kapoor The Income Tax Officer, B–701, Supreme –19, Ward–16(1)(1), Lokhandwala, 3R D Cross Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apqpk1601N

TDS should have been deducted by the assessee on rent payment. Ultimately, he held that no tax has been deducted on office rent and it is disallowable. In the end, he disallowed expenditure of ₹47,85,384/- out of expenditure of ₹5,15,384/-. 04. He further found that assessee has deposited cash

INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MR.KHALID MUSTAFA VASAIWALA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

cash flow statement filed before us by the assessee which is placed at pages 55 to 68 of the paper book, and we find that the source of money deposited, which has been found fault with by the Assessing Officer, has been fully explained by the assessee. In such a scenario, we do not find any infirmity in the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

cash deposits and decline to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Assessment Year 2018-19 Appeal By Assessee : ITA No. 894/Mum/2024 11. By way of the present appeals the Assessee has challenged

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

cash deposits and decline to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Assessment Year 2018-19 Appeal By Assessee : ITA No. 894/Mum/2024 11. By way of the present appeals the Assessee has challenged

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

cash deposits and decline to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Assessment Year 2018-19 Appeal By Assessee : ITA No. 894/Mum/2024 11. By way of the present appeals the Assessee has challenged

SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR V SANGHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

cash deposit of Rs. 50,000 and more, share transaction of Rs. 20,000, or more and TDS return in respect

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

deposited in the\naccounts of the members, maintained with the assessee society, belongs to\nthe assessee, we do not find any basis in sustaining any addition in the hands\nof the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made\nunder section 68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

deposited in the\naccounts of the members, maintained with the assessee society, belongs to\nthe assessee, we do not find any basis in sustaining any addition in the hands\nof the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made\nunder section 68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

deposited in the\naccounts of the members, maintained with the assessee society, belongs to\nthe assessee, we do not find any basis in sustaining any addition in the hands\nof the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made\nunder section 68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

deposited in the\naccounts of the members, maintained with the assessee society, belongs to\nthe assessee, we do not find any basis in sustaining any addition in the hands\nof the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made\nunder section 68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed

GIRISH KARAMSHI DEDHIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 15(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDs – Rs. 68,742/- (iii) Disallowance of interest on loans – Rs. 28,46,677/- (iv) Disallowance of Expenses under section 14A – Rs. 20,050/- (v) Addition under section 69A towards cash deposits

ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ASAHI INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS LTD, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhacit Cir 6(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Asahi Infrastructure R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan & Projects Ltd., M.K. Road, Churchgate C/O. Suresh Singh Chavan Mumbai – 400 020 Near Kala Maruti Mandir Ranpise Nagar Akola – 440 001 Pan Aaaca8777F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

deposits and reconciliation with cash book (iii) Trading account. (iv) GDR transaction (v) Project completion method of all the projects and revised working. 21. During the course of hearing before the AO, the AR was told to submit all details as a final opportunity on or before 20/03/2013. Further, AR also served with a show cause notice dated 12/03/2013

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

cash deposits. The appellant further contended that in the main contract companies, it need to withdraw from bank for the purpose of contract labour charges to be paid at the site on weekly periodicity basis as labourers needs money for their lively-hood. Simultaneously a cheque for Labour Contract charges was issued to their mukkadam who in turn returns