DEV SHARDA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

69A of the Act. The amount of Rs.2,00,000 being cash loan was added under section 269SS and Rs.20,300 was added under section 40(a)(ia) for non- deduction of TDS

DE vs. HARDHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9 (1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

69A of the Act. The amount of Rs.2,00,000 being cash loan was added under section 269SS and Rs.20,300 was added under section 40(a)(ia) for non- deduction of TDS

PRITI SURESH PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

69A. I also find that AY 2023-24, which has been accepted in the assessment order, passed under section 143(3)dated 31.12.2024. 9. I find that the assessee before the assessing officer contended that she is doing small contract business and also claimed that TDS

PRITI SURESH PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

69A. I also find that AY 2023-24, which has been accepted in the assessment order, passed under section 143(3)dated 31.12.2024. 9. I find that the assessee before the assessing officer contended that she is doing small contract business and also claimed that TDS

PRITI SURESH PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

69A. I also find that AY 2023-24, which has been accepted in the assessment order, passed under section 143(3)dated 31.12.2024. 9. I find that the assessee before the assessing officer contended that she is doing small contract business and also claimed that TDS

M/S ORION ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Section 69A of the Act out of the total disallowance of INR 50,04,220/- made by the Assessing Officer. 14. During the search proceedings, a loose paper filed consisting of 45 sheets of paper were seized. On sheet number 9 to 13 there were handwritten notings pertaining to the Appellant for the previous year 2007-08 which have been

JOYWIN FERNANDES,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailjoywin Fernandes 304, Sunjoy View Old Kevni Road, Amboli, Andheri West, Maharashtra - 400058 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aanpf2016J V/S

TDS was deducted under section 192 of the Act. Such being the facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee has duly explained the nature and source and therefore, the receipt of Rs.11,94,733/- cannot be treated as unexplained money under section 69A

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

JAI BHAVANI RETI UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,VIRAR vs. THANE 4(1), ASHAR IT PARK THANE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jai Bhavani Reti Utpadak Sahakari Ito,Ward-4(1), Thane Sanstha Ltd. Vs Ashar It Park, Thane, At Naringi Post Virar, Vasai-Virar, Maharashtra – 400602. Maharashtra – 401201. [Pan No. Aaatj6207E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

69A of Rs. 27,00,000/-, disallowance of deduction under section 80P and not allowing credit of TDS shown in form

SHAH SANDEEP ANANTKUMAR HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO-32(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

69A of the Act, and added the long term capital gains of Rs.27,28,020, claimed as exempt, under section 68 of the Act. 3 | P a g e 5. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:- 5.2. “During the course of appellate proceedings it is submitted

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

section 69A of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Thus, the order 30.10.20223 passed by the NFAC is unlawful, unwarranted and therefore, bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 07.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,72,730/-. The assessee has mainly shown salary income

PARSHWANATH JEWELLERS PVT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 69A of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 2.1 Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in the deleting the addition on account of estimation of profit of 8% of total revenue even

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(3)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. PARSHWANATH JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 69A of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 2.1 Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in the deleting the addition on account of estimation of profit of 8% of total revenue even

DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RADHAMOHAN MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of the revenue challenging the decision of ld

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Radhamohan Marketing Mumbai Private Limited Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Vs. Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 88/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1600/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Radhamohan Marketing Private Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Limited Mumbai Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Vs. Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent)

TDS. The said ground of appeal is not pressed by the appellant. Accordingly, ground no. 4 is dismissed.” ITA No. 1600/Mum/2025 & C.O. No. 88/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Radhamohan Marketing Private Limited 5.5 Regarding Addition u/s. 69A for Rs. 1,00,10,000/- on account of undisclosed money found and seized during search action. “9.4 Decision 9.4.1 The findings

MAGESTIC PREMISES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-2, THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Pakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13

69A of the Act and an addition of INR 2,75,000 as commission expenditure under section 69C of the Act on the basis that the assessee has availed accommodation entry of unsecured loan from an entity controlled by Mr. Shripal Vora. 6. From the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, forming part of the paper book

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASVINDER KALYAN SALUJA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

69A on account of Miscellaneous advances of Rs.7,00,000/ Miscellaneous advances of Rs.7,00,000/- received during the AY 2 received during the AY 2013- 14 is confirmed. 14 is confirmed.” 5. Before us, while addressing the cross Before us, while addressing the cross-objections, objections, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged for the assessee challenged validity

SHAN EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrishan Exports Vs./ Central Circle (3)(4), 1/213, Navjivan Society, बनाम Mumbai Lamington Road, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Mumbai-400008 Air India Bldg. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfs008B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

69A to Section 68 of the Act exercising section 251(1) powers. Your Honor, there is no such power provided by the law that Id. CIT(A) could change the provision of law qua the item of which assessment was made. Kindly delete the addition” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm did not file

ABBAS KHAN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy Sabbas Khan, (Through Legal Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre/ Heir Mr. Iqbal Khan) Income-Tax Officer 41(1)(1), Flat No.7, Haroon Building, 1St Mumbai Floor, A H Wadia Marg, Opp Habib Hospital, Old Agra Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai-400 070 Pan: Aahpk3046K Appellant Respondent

TDS on contractual receipts) for the AY 2012–13. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2019 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee. Pursuant thereto, notices under Section 142(1) dated 22.07.2019 and 07.11.2019 were issued, followed by final show cause notices dated 12.11.2019 and 22.11.2019, requiring an explanation