M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

credits in the accounts of bogus supplier would bogus supplier would represent the amount of undisclosed represent the amount of undisclosed cash utilized by the assessee for making payments to cash utilized by the assessee for making payments to cash utilized by the assessee for making payments to undisclosed real supplier. undisclosed real supplier. 12. How to deal with taxability

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹15,59,67,710/ 15,59,67,710/– under Section 143(3) of the Act under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹15,59,67,710/ 15,59,67,710/– under Section 143(3) of the Act under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

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 purchases, purchases, but deleted the addition in respect of deleted the addition in respect of four purchase parties and in re purchase parties and in respect of balance 9 parties sustained parties sustained addition @ 5% of the purchase addition @ 5% of the purchase amount. In respect of issue of . In respect of issue of unexplained cash credit

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

unexplained cash credit nexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the A in terms of section 68 of the Act. After considering submission of the assessee considering submission of the assessee, the learned , the learned Assessing Officer concluded as under: Officer concluded as under: 16.6 All the indicators mentioned in Pa 16.6 All the indicators mentioned in Paras

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 ()

unexplained 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

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 ()

unexplained 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

BINA GOENKA THE JEWELLER LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bina Goenka The Jeweller Llp, Asst. Cit Circle-25(2), 501 Kings Apartments, Juhu 220, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Between Jw Mariot & Tulip Vs. To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Star, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapfb 7501 C Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credit by the Assessing Officer is cash sales recorded in the books of accounts immediately prior to the sales recorded in the books of accounts immediately prior t sales recorded in the books of accounts immediately prior t demonetization period as compared to no cash sales either before or monetization period as compared to no cash sales either

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

credits and not\noffered for taxation income of the assessee.\n14. Although the trend of cash sales in this business is being followed\nfrom years andon analysis of cash sales to cash deposit ratio, it can be\nnoted that whatever cash sales was recorded by the assessee for the year\nthe same was deposited in its bank account.\n15. Since

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

purchase value of the shares held by the said companies in the other companies of the group without, however, any passage of cash and the said companies in their turn passing on the said non-existent cash to GB and Co. 14. Shri Bajoria emphasised that, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer examined the transactions

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - Assessment years 2015- 16 to 2017-18 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of selling dry fruits Assessing Officer made addition on - account of bogus purchases at rate of 25 per cent of purchases made by assessee from certain parties but sales made to these parties were completely ignored It was - found that purchases and sales

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

unexplained cash credit of ₹ 20,616,167/–. 14. In similar manner, following additions or disallowances were made for other assessment years:- serial Assessment year Addition on account Addition on account number of alleged bogus of alleged cash purchases