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

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

bogus credit in the books of account. The case of the\ndepartment, on the other hand, was that whereas in the party ledgers\nof the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year\n1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,66,612.60 paise had been shown on account\nof sundry creditors, in the balance sheet that had been

MOHEMMED ANWAR BY LEGAL HEIR MOHAMMED AAMER,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, 17(2), MUMBAI

80C and section 80TTA of the Act, the assessee filed\nhis return of income on 24/12/2014 declaring a total income of Rs.\n36,62,870. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation\nissued under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of the\ninformation received from the DDIT(Investigation), Unit-2(3), Kolkata that

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

bogus credit in the books of account. The case of the\ndepartment, on the other hand, was that whereas in the party ledgers\nof the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year\n1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,66,612.60 paise had been shown on account\nof sundry creditors, in the balance sheet that had been

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

bogus credit in the books of account. The case of the\ndepartment, on the other hand, was that whereas in the party ledgers\nof the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year\n1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,66,612.60 paise had been shown on account\nof sundry creditors, in the balance sheet that had been

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. JYOTI A. KULKARNI, PUNE

bogus credit in the books of account. The case of the\ndepartment, on the other hand, was that whereas in the party ledgers\nof the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year\n1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,66,612.60 paise had been shown on account\nof sundry creditors, in the balance sheet that had been

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

bogus credit in the books of account. The case of the\ndepartment, on the other hand, was that whereas in the party ledgers\nof the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year\n1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,66,612.60 paise had been shown on account\nof sundry creditors, in the balance sheet that had been

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

bogus credit in the books of account. The case of the\ndepartment, on the other hand, was that whereas in the party ledgers\nof the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year\n1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,66,612.60 paise had been shown on account\nof sundry creditors, in the balance sheet that had been

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

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