TABREZ IQBAL SAYED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhritabrez Iqbal Sayed V/S. Ito, Ward 12(3)(1) बनाम 1002, 10Th Floor, Yusuf Room No. 147A, 1St Floor, Manzil, Dr. Anandrao Nair Aayakar Bhavan, Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400011 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anops1005J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

demonetization. He has also furnished his capital account, balance sheet as well as form No. 16 evidencing payment of salary, out of which TDS

ADHAR NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Adhar Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Pr. Cit-1 Maryadit Room No. ‘B’ Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle 001, Adhar Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Vs. Maryadit, Uttam Road, Morva, Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 Bhayandar-401 101

TDS into Govt. account, if any. 6. The ld. PCIT has held that the A.O. has not made proper verification as to the cash deposits during the demonetization

RAVINDRA MAHADEV SATPUTE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ravindra Mahadev Ito Ward 26(3)(6) Satpute Room No. 417, 4Th Floor, Vs. Group No.2, Pachubai Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Chawl, Hariyali Village, 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vikhroli East, Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (East), 400083 Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Bhfps0240B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sanjay Thakkar Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Ar : Date Of Hearing 07/11/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/11/2023

TDS has been claimed which could have been verified from Form has been claimed which could have been verified from Form has been claimed which could have been verified from Form 26AS. 4. All the enquiries pertaining to cash deposits during the All the enquiries pertaining to cash deposits during the All the enquiries pertaining to cash deposits during

KTK INFOTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 Ktk Infortronics I.T.O. Ward (2)(3) Private Limited Thane. Oceania B-101, Lodha Casa Rio, Kalyan Shil Road, Vs. Dombivali East, Thane-421 304. Pan: Aafck5888E (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetization period and treated the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act which is subjected to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act was also initiated by the Ld. AO separately. Another disallowance of Rs.4,61,730/- was made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that

PARESH VALJI CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

demonetization period. b. An addition of Rs.11,38,4107- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 c. An addition of Rs.59,59,0007- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the investment in property as unexplained as no source is given. d. An addition of Rs.6,90,0007- as per information displayed on AIR as rental

TRANS OCEAN AGENCY,J.B. NAGAR ANDHERI(WEST) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 33(1)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

demonetization period, by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT (A) erred in holding the action of Id. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 26,39,500/-on account of unsecured loan

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

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 in the assessment order and remand report

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

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 in the assessment order and remand report

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

demonetization period.\nThe cash deposited by the appellant in specified bank notes was of\nRs.3,23,84,000/- and as on 01.04.2016 the appellant was having\ncash in hand balance of Rs.43,24,459/-. The AO while giving credit\nto the cash in hand balance of Rs.43,24,459/- made the addition of\nRs.2,58,78,235/- instead of Rs.2

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

demonetization period.\nThe cash deposited by the appellant in specified bank notes was of\nRs.3,23,84,000/- and as on 01.04.2016 the appellant was having\ncash in hand balance of Rs.43,24,459/-. The AO while giving credit\nto the cash in hand balance of Rs.43,24,459/- made the addition of\nRs.2,58,78,235/- instead of Rs.2

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

demonetization period.\nThe cash deposited by the appellant in specified bank notes was of\nRs.3,23,84,000/- and as on 01.04.2016 the appellant was having\ncash in hand balance of Rs.43,24,459/-. The AO while giving credit\nto the cash in hand balance of Rs.43,24,459/- made the addition of\nRs.2,58,78,235/- instead of Rs.2

HIMMATLAL KANHAIYALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-41, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period, I submit the following information as required in your annexure of notice as under: 1. Letter Of Authority already submitted online on 31.08.2018 2. M/s Ratnmani Jewellers (Proprietor: Himmatlal K. Jain) Conducting Retail Business of Jewellery. Source of Income are Business income and other income as interest and dividend 3. (A) Following documents are already submitted on 25/01/2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

TDS, etc. 18. Copies of Debit Notes issued on the party for usage of face masks, hairnet, hand gloves, disposable caps, leakage problem in machine, negligence from operator, taflon tape roll, consumer complaint of packaging of meat & chicken (Ogms, wastage of laminated rolls. etc. 19. Advance payments requirement requests from the contractor 20. Copy of Service Tax challan paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

TDS, etc. 18. Copies of Debit Notes issued on the party for usage of face masks, hairnet, hand gloves, disposable caps, leakage problem in machine, negligence from operator, taflon tape roll, consumer complaint of packaging of meat & chicken (Ogms, wastage of laminated rolls. etc. 19. Advance payments requirement requests from the contractor 20. Copy of Service Tax challan paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

TDS, etc. 18. Copies of Debit Notes issued on the party for usage of face masks, hairnet, hand gloves, disposable caps, leakage problem in machine, negligence from operator, taflon tape roll, consumer complaint of packaging of meat & chicken (Ogms, wastage of laminated rolls. etc. 19. Advance payments requirement requests from the contractor 20. Copy of Service Tax challan paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

TDS, etc. 18. Copies of Debit Notes issued on the party for usage of face masks, hairnet, hand gloves, disposable caps, leakage problem in machine, negligence from operator, taflon tape roll, consumer complaint of packaging of meat & chicken (Ogms, wastage of laminated rolls. etc. 19. Advance payments requirement requests from the contractor 20. Copy of Service Tax challan paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

TDS, etc. 18. Copies of Debit Notes issued on the party for usage of face masks, hairnet, hand gloves, disposable caps, leakage problem in machine, negligence from operator, taflon tape roll, consumer complaint of packaging of meat & chicken (Ogms, wastage of laminated rolls. etc. 19. Advance payments requirement requests from the contractor 20. Copy of Service Tax challan paid

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 –Rs. 1,24,41,000/- (vi) Disallowance of lease charges – Rs. 35,00,000/- 3. On further appeal, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee. Though