MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

purchase and sale of the stock on which the LTCG was earned. All the details are filed in assessee’s Paper Book and the same were filed before the Ld. AO. The details filed are as under: S.No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 1. Copy of Contract note of the Broker through whom the shares were sold. 102 2. Copy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KLT AUTOMOTIVE AND TUBULAR PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

bogus purchases to set off the non-genuine sales, which was done to continue the use of loans taken from bank Accordingly, the entire transactions of purchases aggregating to Rs.50,57,84,991/- are hereby treated as non-genuine and accommodation entries. Since all the purchases by the assessee company are non-genuine and merely in the nature of accommodation

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

purchase have been held to be genuine and accepted as such, the credit that remained outstanding in such account could not be treated to have been remained unexplained - Vide Jt. CIT v. Mathura Das Ashok Kumar 11 (II) ITCL 443 (Ahd-Trib) 101 TTJ (All-Trib) 810. The provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section 69. Section

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

purchase have been held to be genuine and accepted as such, the credit that remained outstanding in such account could not be treated to have been remained unexplained - Vide Jt. CIT v. Mathura Das Ashok Kumar 11 (II) ITCL 443 (Ahd-Trib) 101 TTJ (All-Trib) 810. The provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section 69. Section

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases recorded during this period and submitted before Assessing Officer for subsequent three assessment years. These cash collection and bank deposits were also reconciled and submitted before Assessing Officer for the periods AY 2016-17 to 2018-19. The Assessing Officer has not found any discrepancies in the above statement and the stocks are matching with the audited financial statement

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases recorded during this period and submitted before Assessing Officer for subsequent three assessment years. These cash collection and bank deposits were also reconciled and submitted before Assessing Officer for the periods AY 2016-17 to 2018-19. The Assessing Officer has not found any discrepancies in the above statement and the stocks are matching with the audited financial statement

M/S. UNITED INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO. WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

section 148A(1)(a) and 148A(1)(b) of the Act. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in law the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad-in-law.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a partnership firm and had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice

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\nstands dismissed

purchase have been held to be genuine and accepted as\nsuch, the credit that remained outstanding in such account could not be\ntreated to have been remained unexplained - Vide Jt. CIT v. Mathura Das\nAshok Kumar 11 (II) ITCL 443 (Ahd-Trib) 101 TTJ (All-Trib) 810.\n\nThe provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section

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\nstands dismissed

purchase have been held to be genuine and accepted as\nsuch, the credit that remained outstanding in such account could not be\ntreated to have been remained unexplained - Vide Jt. CIT v. Mathura Das\nAshok Kumar 11 (II) ITCL 443 (Ahd-Trib) 101 TTJ (All-Trib) 810.\n\nThe provisions of section 68 are in pari materia with section

KOMAL KUMARPAL SHAH,KALYAN THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Komal Kumarpal Shah Income Tax Officer 403, Zozwala Complex, Ward 3 (2) Vs. Agra Road, Rani Mansion, Kalyan. - 421301 Murbad Road- 421301. Pan: Azups5227N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, C. A. : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R. Revenue By : 23 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 22 . 08 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was shown in the return of income. Therefore, the appellant failed to give explanation/documentary evidence that this corresponding capital gain in respect of this transaction was reflected in the return of income Hence, keeping in view the Assessing Officer's observation that the appellant had not shown this penny stock transaction