SHAHIL JAYESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-20(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gains, and income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income on 29/07/2017, declaring a total income of Rs.8,61,560. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.6 lakh, in its bank account during the demonetization

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

capital expenditure or personal expense of the assessee, and It should be incurred or laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. 9.11 As discussed above, the expense which is debited to profit and loss account (P&L) is the difference between the market value of share as computed under the guidelines of SEBI

AMAN FATEULLA MOGUL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleaman Fateulla Mogul Vs. Ito 23(1)(1) Shop No. 2, Ongc Bldg Matru Mandir No.1, Ongc Bandra Mumbai – 400007. Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapm9284G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neelam Jadhav.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Jayashree Thakur.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

demonetization period was submitted with the department while filling the return of Income for AY 2017 2018 as well as during the assessment and appellate - proceedings. Hence, Appellant had successfully discharged onus of explaining that deposit made in the bank were from his own capital funds from the firms, therefore additions confirmed under section 68 liable to be deleted. Aman

ITO-23(3)(6), MUMBAI vs. SURESH JUGRAJ JAIN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Ito-23(3)(6) Suresh Jugraj Jain Room No. 608, Earnest House, Ground Floor, Gurukrua Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 267/269, Mumbadevi Road, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002

capital gains and income from other source. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there was abnormal increase in the cash deposits during the demonetization

DHIRAJLAL KHATAU THACKER ,MUMBAI vs. ITO. 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 463/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Dhirajlal Khatau Thacker Vs. Ito-27(1)(4) B-301, Mahavir Co-Op. Housing Room No. 409 4Th Floor, Tower 6 Society Limited Derasar Lane, Vashi Railway Ghatkopar Station Commercial East, Mumbai-400 077. Complex, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan : Acbpt5615P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Thakurdesai Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of 25.07.2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization period. Accordingly notice under section 143 (2) of the act was issued on 21/08/2018. 4. It was found that assessee has deposited ₹ 19 lakhs in the bank account maintained with Abhudaya cooperative bank Ltd. Assessee submitted that source of income is from salary, house property, business income as assessee is partner in partnership firms/ LLPS and capital gain

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

demonetization period was clearly beyond human probabilities. 8. In rejoinder, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee reiterated that in the written submissions dated, 10/04/2023, the Assessee had explained that the Assessee was engaged in real estate business and was used to maintain high cash-in-hand in order to take advantage of good investment opportunities. It was further submitted

HIMMATLAL KANHAIYALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-41, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain in question was earned on long-term investments held for a period in excess of one year which assessee treated as investments held to maturity; and that assessee was entitled to depreciation claimed on value of securities held in trading account, Commissioner was justified in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 in instant case - Held

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)

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.1" Upon perusal of Section 145(3) above, it is observed that correctness of Sales cannot be challenged without pointing out any specific mistake or deficiency in the books of account or without recording a firm finding that the profits and gains cannot be properly deduced from such books

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)

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.1" Upon perusal of Section 145(3) above, it is observed that correctness of Sales cannot be challenged without pointing out any specific mistake or deficiency in the books of account or without recording a firm finding that the profits and gains cannot be properly deduced from such books

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:

gainfully relied on to adjudicate the issue and to do the required justice. In this case of ACIT Central Circle- Visakhapatnam vs. Heera Panna Jewellers decided by Ld. ITAT, Bench Visakhapatnam it was held "......that assessee had explained source of said amount in question as sales, produced sale bills and admitted same as revenue receipt as well as offered

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

demonetized notes from\n14.11.2016 onwards. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the above\nsaid deposits were collected by the assessee prior to 14.11.2016 and it\ncannot be considered as violation of any of the Provisions of the Act.\nAccordingly, he submitted that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the\nprovisions of section

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

demonetized notes from\n14.11.2016 onwards. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the above\nsaid deposits were collected by the assessee prior to 14.11.2016 and it\ncannot be considered as violation of any of the Provisions of the Act.\nAccordingly, he submitted that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the\nprovisions of section 68 of the Act.\n14. I heard

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

demonetized notes from\n14.11.2016 onwards. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the above\nsaid deposits were collected by the assessee prior to 14.11.2016 and it\ncannot be considered as violation of any of the Provisions of the Act.\nAccordingly, he submitted that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the\nprovisions of section 68 of the Act.\n14. I heard

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

demonetized notes from\n14.11.2016 onwards. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the above\nsaid deposits were collected by the assessee prior to 14.11.2016 and it\ncannot be considered as violation of any of the Provisions of the Act.\nAccordingly, he submitted that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the\nprovisions of section 68 of the Act.\n14. I heard

YAZDIN JIMMY MISTRY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainyazdin Jimmy Mistry Vs. Ito, Ward – 42(3)(2) 2/7, Rustom Baug, Sant Room No. 609, 6Th Savta Marg, Byculla, Floor, Kautilya Mumbai – 400027. Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Agapm9097K (Applicant) (Respondent)

demonetization period. 2 Yazdin Jimmy Mistry, Mumbai 3. I have heard the councils for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before me and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 4. From the records, I noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.17,85,500/- during the demonetisation period, and in his statement