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. DEPUTY 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

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

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

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases at ₹.67,51,584/- and income from house property ₹.1,45,100/-, was added to the income of the assessee

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases at ₹.67,51,584/- and income from house property ₹.1,45,100/-, was added to the income of the assessee

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section