ABHAY MARUTI TODANKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DEHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) took the view that the order passed by AO rejecting 154 application filed by the assessee is valid in law. Accordingly, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Learned AR submitted that

PRABIR KUMAR RAY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhprabir Kumar Ray, Ito-26(2)(4) Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Flat No. 601, Block No.C, Trans Residency-1, Midc, Smt. Kamladevi Mittal Andheri (E), Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Vs. Mumbai-400093. Charni Road (W), Pan: Aempr8166A Mumbai-4000202. Appellant Respondent : Shri Aman Khandelwal (C.A) Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

80C and made addition of Rs. 15,30,230/- in the assessment order passed on19.02.2014 under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice 19.02.2014 under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the reply to the show- cause notice, the assessee stated that the assessee shifted from Mumbai ITA No. 5389 Mum 2017-Prabir

ARUN NARAYAN CHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Arun Narayan Chavan Dcit Circle D-75, Nandadeep Chsl 42(2)(1) Deonar Municipal Colony Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Govandi West Bkc, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 043. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aabpc0126C Appellant Respondent

section 80C of the Act claim made by the appellant as he filed evidences for payment relating to 80C deduction. Thus, a part of penalty was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining penalty on the addition of Rs. 6,56,096/- was confirmed. e) On this penalty which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. JYOTI A. KULKARNI, PUNE

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

SHRI MANOJ PREMCHAND DHARMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Manoj Premchand Dharmani, The Income Tax Officer 22(2)(3), Prop. Of M/S Drishti Trade House, Vashi Railway Station Complex, B-503, Swami Jairamdas Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 Shopping Centre, R.C. Marg, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aegpd3228P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vikash Kr Agarwal (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2019

TDS against declaration under Section 197A. 7. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 24,57,351/- on account of estimated net profit merely on assumption, presumptions and surmises. The appellant have declared the net profit after claiming the expenses as per proper and regular books of accounts which are quite reasonable and justified

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

TDS was deductible u/s 194J of the Act. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd (supra), no doubt, the claim of the assessee is liable to be allowable, hence, we ordered ITA. No.2522/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 accordingly. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against

NTT GLOBAL NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -6, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

80C (LIC, PPF, NSC etc.), 80D (Mediclaim), 80G (Donations), etc. has been extended to 30th June, 2020. Hence the investment/payment can be made up to 30.06.2020 for claiming the deduction under these sections for FY 2019-20. iv. The date for making investment/construction/purchase for claiming roll over benefit/deduction in respect of capital gains under sections 54 to 54GB

SUDHIR NAMDEV KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

80C amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- towards employee contribution to provident fund, LIC premium, and tuition fees, which were evident from Form 16 and/or verifiable from the employer's confirmation. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not allowing

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the assessee. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld. Assessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice Mrs. JYOTI AJIT

MS BINA SURESH GIDWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternative submission raised

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

TDS once deducted shall not be refunded. For further details, please consult your Income Tax advisor/consultant. 11 ITA No.903/Mum/2023; A.Y. 2014-15 Ms. Bina Suresh Gidwani For any clarifications or assistance, please feel free to contact us. Pledging our services in the best interest of the customer. Yours Faithfully, For Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited.” 7.1 On perusal

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails