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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI. , MUMBAI vs. EKJYOT PROPERTIES , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n8.\nAggrieved assessee filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant extract of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:\n“B.13. Decision: I have considered the facts

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

unexplained money\" in the hands of the assessee.”\n\n(b) In the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ITA\nNo.320/Bang/2023), the Bangalore bench of Tribunal considered an\nidentical issue and it was decided as under: -\n\n\"7. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee is a credit\nco-operative society dealing with the members only

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

unexplained money\" in the hands of the assessee.”\n(b) In the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ITA\nNo.320/Bang/2023), the Bangalore bench of Tribunal considered an\nidentical issue and it was decided as under: -\n\"7. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee is a credit\nco-operative society dealing with the members only. During

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

unexplained money\" in the hands of the assessee.\"\n(b) In the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ITA\nNo.320/Bang/2023), the Bangalore bench of Tribunal considered an\nidentical issue and it was decided as under: -\n\"7. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee is a credit\nco-operative society dealing with the members only. During

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

unexplained money\" in the hands of the assessee.”\n(b) In the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ITA\nNo.320/Bang/2023), the Bangalore bench of Tribunal considered an\nidentical issue and it was decided as under: -\n\"7. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee is a credit\nco-operative society dealing with the members only. During

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

unexplained money" in the hands of the assessee.‖ (b) In the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ITA No.320/Bang/2023), the Bangalore bench of Tribunal considered an identical issue and it was decided as under:- ―7. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee is a credit co-operative society dealing with the members only. During the demonetisation period

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

unexplained money" in the hands of the assessee.‖ (b) In the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd (ITA No.320/Bang/2023), the Bangalore bench of Tribunal considered an identical issue and it was decided as under:- ―7. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee is a credit co-operative society dealing with the members only. During the demonetisation period

SHAHIL JAYESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-20(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

unexplained money was not justified and bears to be deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the addition of Rs.6 lakh, on account of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetisation

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added to total income for the A.Y. 2013 1961 and added to total income for the A.Y. 2013-14. Assessee 14. Assessee was also show caused as to why the penalty proceedings u/s was also show caused as to why the penalty proceedings u/s was also show caused

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

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS and advance tax would be given after due verification of the same. Similarly for ground Nos. 29 & 31, the revised interest shall be calculated as per directions of the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/06/2017. In fact in this interim order dated 28/09/2017, though it was termed as order giving effect to the ld. CIT(A)‟s order

PRAKASH JHA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS credit has been allowed by AO and hence, the assessee is not pressing this ground and the same can be dismissed as not pressed. The Departmental Representative has not objected to the same, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 7. The second issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming

PRAKASH JHA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS credit has been allowed by AO and hence, the assessee is not pressing this ground and the same can be dismissed as not pressed. The Departmental Representative has not objected to the same, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 7. The second issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming

DE vs. HARDA DEVELOPERS P. 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

money is given, the AO made the addition of Rs.21 lakh by considering the same as "unexplained expenditure" under section 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under:- “8.2I am in agreement withthe finding ofthe A.O. As per the notings in page

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

money is given, the AO made the addition of Rs.21 lakh by considering the same as "unexplained expenditure" under section 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under:- “8.2I am in agreement withthe finding ofthe A.O. As per the notings in page

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

money is given, the AO made the addition of Rs.21 lakh by considering the same as "unexplained expenditure" under section 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under:- “8.2I am in agreement withthe finding ofthe A.O. As per the notings in page

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

money is given, the AO made the addition of Rs.21 lakh by considering the same as "unexplained expenditure" under section 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under:- “8.2I am in agreement withthe finding ofthe A.O. As per the notings in page

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC -6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

money calculated as per our direction in para above and add the same to the income of the assessee. 30. In view of our findings hereinabove the ground No.1 of the Revenue is partly allowed and ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are also partly allowed. 31. The issue raised by the Revenue has in ground No.2 is against