CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191 to 7197/M/2021 ITAs 4977 to 498/Mum/2019& ITA 2498/Mum/2019 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: On the basis of search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act by DDIT(Inv)-Unit

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191 to 7197/M/2021 ITAs 4977 to 498/Mum/2019& ITA 2498/Mum/2019 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: On the basis of search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act by DDIT(Inv)-Unit

PANKAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191 to 7197/M/2021 ITAs 4977 to 498/Mum/2019& ITA 2498/Mum/2019 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: On the basis of search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act by DDIT(Inv)-Unit

SHRENUJ GEMS & JEWELLERY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Plot No.Gj-09, Seepz++, Marol Industrial Area, Seepz-Sez, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400096 Pan:Aajcs4265M ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

Bogus Purchase of Rs. 2,813 10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming rejection by the assessing officer of purchase of consumables of Rs. 2,813 from G. M. International in a routine manner simply because the name of the vendor appeared in the list of "suspicious Dealers" who had issued false bills without delivery

GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

80C and 15,000/- u/s 80D of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A,O, erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,13,827/- being 100% of the purchases made from M/s Pragati Enterprises by treating genuine purchases as non genuine purchases/unexplained expenditure.” 3. In this case the Assessing

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

bogus credit in the books of account. The case of the department, on the other hand, was that whereas in the party ledgers of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,66,612.60 paise had been shown on account of sundry creditors, in the balance sheet that had been

SATISH RAJAJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

bogus purchases without appreciating the facts that the transaction of Rs. 3,36,65,779/- from party is genuine purchases, and the payments was made through banking channel and the quantity details of the purchase are matching with the sales. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition

MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 10(13A) of the Act. The assessee was asked by the AO vide SCN dated 14-02-2013 as to why HRA claimed as exempt should not be added to income of the assessee and consequently brought to tax under the provisions of 1961 Act. The assessee submitted that she has paid a rent of Rs.31,500/- per month

MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 10(13A) of the Act. The assessee was asked by the AO vide SCN dated 14-02-2013 as to why HRA claimed as exempt should not be added to income of the assessee and consequently brought to tax under the provisions of 1961 Act. The assessee submitted that she has paid a rent of Rs.31,500/- per month

MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 10(13A) of the Act. The assessee was asked by the AO vide SCN dated 14-02-2013 as to why HRA claimed as exempt should not be added to income of the assessee and consequently brought to tax under the provisions of 1961 Act. The assessee submitted that she has paid a rent of Rs.31,500/- per month

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

RAJESH M JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 10(38).  CIT v/s Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) 6 Rajesh M Jain (HUF) S.10(38)/69: Fact that a small amount invested in "penny" stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is "bogus" if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted.  Farrah Marker v/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

purchase of goods was made and debited to the profit\nand loss account and allowed as such. This contention of the Ld.\nDR is not acceptable as the Ld. CIT(A) in the order has given the\nfinding that during the course of search action, out of books\nexpenses incurred were also found and one of the sources