P V MEDIA VISION PVT. LTD ,LOWER PAREL MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

bogus cash sale and advance from debtors to create the source of cash deposit in demonetization period as well as prior to that. 18. From the details of submissions regarding the ledger account of some of the debtors which was submitted by the assessee company for earlier years it is found that the debtors from whom the cash receipt

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. PV MEDIA VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

bogus cash sale and advance from debtors to create the source of cash deposit in demonetization period as well as prior to that. 18. From the details of submissions regarding the ledger account of some of the debtors which was submitted by the assessee company for earlier years it is found that the debtors from whom the cash receipt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

bogus without any concrete basis or independent verification is erroneous. Given the comprehensive evidence presented by the appellant, Given the comprehensive evidence presented by the appellant, Given the comprehensive evidence presented by the appellant, the lack of cr the lack of cross- examination of the suppliers, and the examination of the suppliers, and the established judicial guidelines, it is clear

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

cash was withdrawn immediately after cheques were deposited cheques were deposited 12. The Assessing Officer accord 12. The Assessing Officer accordingly held that it is a well settled ingly held that it is a well settled legal position that onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases is legal position that onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

cash was withdrawn immediately after cheques were deposited cheques were deposited 12. The Assessing Officer accord 12. The Assessing Officer accordingly held that it is a well settled ingly held that it is a well settled legal position that onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases is legal position that onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

purchasers as the cash sales was below Rs.2,00,000/- and Income\nTax Act, 1961 nowhere mentions that cash transactions below Rs.\n2,00,000/- cannot take place. (Copy of sample sales bill including cash\nsales is part of Paper Book pg no 156-167).\n16. From the records, we noticed that on the day of demonetization i.e\n08.11.2016

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

cash credit. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

cash credit. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGHVI DHANRUPJI DEVAJI & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Income Tax Central Circle Devaji & Co. 5(3), Mumbai 33, Mumba Devi Road, Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, Dagina Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaqfs6338H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M B Sanghvi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ground I - Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting/Allowing Relief In Respect Of The Addition Of Rs.

purchases and sales out of the book. Therefore, to adjust its undisclosed money generated from out of books activities, it has booked concocted sales just before demonetization period. 5.3 Concocted cash sale cannot be booked without manipulation in books of account and in this case assessee must have manipulated books of account. 5.4. Human Probability Test: The explanations offered

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

bogus long term additions made on account of bogus long term additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences capital gain on the ground that the evidences capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry found during search at the premises of entry found

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KUNDAN JEWELLERS, MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

bogus purchase transactions with Rajan Gems to the tune of Rs.40,43,997/- which information was based on search and seizure operation carried out in the case of Gautam Jain and Others. The ld. AO has made addition 3 M/s. Kundan Jewellers by applying the gross profit rate on such purchases and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 vide

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding