M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

TDS deducted for such payments. The Ld. AO determined the profit @ 5% of the turnover. The first appellate authority on the other hand restricted the estimation of profit to 3% of the total turnover by M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. relying on the report published by ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. on impact of economic slowdown on Indian Textile

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

TDS deducted for such payments. The Ld. AO determined the profit @ 5% of the turnover. The first appellate authority on the other hand restricted the estimation of profit to 3% of the total turnover by M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. relying on the report published by ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. on impact of economic slowdown on Indian Textile

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit. Section 68 provides inter alia that if any sum is found credited in the books of a tax payer and he either does not offer any explanation about the nature and source of such sum, or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of Assessing officer, then such sum can be taxed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit. Section 68 provides inter alia that if any sum is found credited in the books of a tax payer and he either does not offer any explanation about the nature and source of such sum, or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of Assessing officer, then such sum can be taxed

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit

FAIYAZ YUNUS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Faiyaz Yunus Patel, Ito-27(1)(4), Flat No. 602, Vmk Chs, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Tower Vs. Lbs Marg, Chirag Nagar, No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Akxpp 9040 L Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. credit under section 68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income

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

unexplained cash credit for the\nreason that those 14 shareholders did not respond to the notice\nissued under section 133(6) of the Act. During the remand\nproceedings, the assessee filed documents in respect of the 14\nshareholders, identical to the documents which were filed in respect\nof 53 shareholders out of the 67 shareholders. The share capital\nreceived from

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

unexplained cash credit for the\nreason that those 14 shareholders did not respond to the notice\nissued under section 133(6) of the Act. During the remand\nproceedings, the assessee filed documents in respect of the 14\nshareholders, identical to the documents which were filed in respect\nof 53 shareholders out of the 67 shareholders. The share capital\nreceived from

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

unexplained cash credit for the\nreason that those 14 shareholders did not respond to the notice\nissued under section 133(6) of the Act. During the remand\nproceedings, the assessee filed documents in respect of the 14\nshareholders, identical to the documents which were filed in respect\nof 53 shareholders out of the 67 shareholders. The share capital\nreceived from

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 15 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this