ITO (E)-II(1), MUMBAI vs. KALYANI CARTIABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Assessment Year :2010-11 Ito (E)-Ii(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kalyani Charitable Trust, C/O. Ravi Communication, Jj Hospital Campus, Byculla, Mumbai- 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aaatk3179R Appellant) .. Respondent)

cash credits and the department had not brought any material to rebut the same' leads to conclusion that the appellant has discharged the onus of explaining the credit of Rs.6 Cr. appearing as donation and added u/s 68 of the LT. Act in the computation' of income. Hence same could not be added as unexplained income of the appellant

ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AMISH A MODI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

unexplained cash credit overlooking the mismatch in date of loan in the Balance Sheet and the Loan confirmation filed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr.CIT(A)-48, Mumbai had erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,06,21, 600/- to Rs.6,47,829/- only, giving credit

ACIT CENT CIR 2(1) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI AMISH A MODI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

unexplained cash credit overlooking the mismatch in date of loan in the Balance Sheet and the Loan confirmation filed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr.CIT(A)-48, Mumbai had erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,06,21, 600/- to Rs.6,47,829/- only, giving credit

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

unexplained cash credit overlooking the mismatch in date of loan in the Balance Sheet and the Loan confirmation filed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr.CIT(A)-48, Mumbai had erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,06,21, 600/- to Rs.6,47,829/- only, giving credit

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. DY CTI-CC-2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

unexplained cash credit overlooking the mismatch in date of loan in the Balance Sheet and the Loan confirmation filed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr.CIT(A)-48, Mumbai had erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,06,21, 600/- to Rs.6,47,829/- only, giving credit

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. DY CTI-CC-2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

unexplained cash credit overlooking the mismatch in date of loan in the Balance Sheet and the Loan confirmation filed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr.CIT(A)-48, Mumbai had erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,06,21, 600/- to Rs.6,47,829/- only, giving credit

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

charitable institutions/trusts of Podar group to other charitable institution/trusts were bogus and the donee trusts had thereafter withdrawn cash from their bank accounts and given it back to Podar Group, which thereafter was ploughed into the companies of the said group through a maze of bogus companies, was an incorrect and a baseless allegation. The assessee further placed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

charitable institutions/trusts of Podar group to other charitable institution/trusts were bogus and the donee trusts had thereafter withdrawn cash from their bank accounts and given it back to Podar Group, which thereafter was ploughed into the companies of the said group through a maze of bogus companies, was an incorrect and a baseless allegation. The assessee further placed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

charitable institutions/trusts of Podar group to other charitable institution/trusts were bogus and the donee trusts had thereafter withdrawn cash from their bank accounts and given it back to Podar Group, which thereafter was ploughed into the companies of the said group through a maze of bogus companies, was an incorrect and a baseless allegation. The assessee further placed

SHANKAR A GADDAM,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 006-07 to 2010-

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

charitable trust closely associated with two trade unions. During the course of search, certain incriminating materials were found and seized revealed that Ms.Chandbibi Zaidi is siphoning off funds of the trust through various means including alleged bogus expenditure and accordingly, a statement u/s 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was recorded. The assessee being a civil contractor, rendered

DCIT CC-5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. JAYANAND RELIGIOUS TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Jayananad Religious Trust Dcit Cc-5(2) Shop No. 1, 148, Rasik Kunj, Central Range-5, Room No. 1908, Air India Bldg, Jain Society, Sion (W), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 022 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaatj8901F Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Kapadia, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Nishant Somaiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022

trust fails to explain the source of such voluntary contributions, section 68 of the Act may apply. Earlier decision holding that section 68 does not apply to voluntary contribution were rendered where there was no tax disparity in income taxed as normal income and income as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. In the impugned cash where

MAJLIS E KHUDDAMUL MADARI S,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM. WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 Majlis E Khuddamul Madari S, Ito(Exem), Ward-2(1), 14, Uasim Mansion, Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Koleueheri Village, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Chinchpada, Lal Baug, Parel, Kalina, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400098. Pan : Aaaam0694F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-06-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

unexplained and also undisclosed. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year it may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of the previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source

VAIBHAV PANKAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned\nNational Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals), Mumbai has\nerred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 54,50,000/- being cash\ndeposits during demonetization period ignoring the fact that the said\namount is already assessed

MORAJ BUILDINGS CONCEPTS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

Charitable Trust. As observed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to explain the purpose of making the donation and as to how it was related to assessee’s business. Moreover, it failed to explain that the said Trust was having tax exemption certificate based on which deduction could be claimed by the assessee-company. In such a scenario

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. DY CTI-CC-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed and at the same time grounds No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

cash credits on loss of sale (LTCL) under section 68 of the Act and Rs.5,91,45,787/- as unexplained deposits under section 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed

ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AMISH A MODI, MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed and at the same time grounds No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

cash credits on loss of sale (LTCL) under section 68 of the Act and Rs.5,91,45,787/- as unexplained deposits under section 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed

RAJASHTHANI RAWAL BRAHMAN SAMAJ VIKAS MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-INCOME TAX DEPT , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rajasthani Rawal Brahman Samaj Commissioner Of Income Tax Vikas Mandal (Appeals) Income Tax Dept. Nfac 17, Om Shree Sai Darshan, Kailash Income Tax Officer, Circle 3, Vs. Nagar, Koper Cross Road, Opp. Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421306. Sakharam Complex, Dombivali (W), Thane – 421202. Pan/Gir No. Aacar 9376 B (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri. R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr. Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

charitable trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 engaged in carrying out various social activities. The assessee has not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny based on the information gathered during the phase of online verification under ‘Operation Clean Money’. The learned Assessing Officer

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. PRIYANKA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 834 To 836/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

credit limits of Rs. 46.52 crores. Such circular trading has been in replacement for a guarantee payment to the banks. Ld. AO estimated the commission that must have been charged on inflated purchases and sales @3% of total sales and purchases booked through circular trading. Assessment was accordingly completed u/s. 143(3) at an income

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. PRIYANKA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 834 To 836/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

credit limits of Rs. 46.52 crores. Such circular trading has been in replacement for a guarantee payment to the banks. Ld. AO estimated the commission that must have been charged on inflated purchases and sales @3% of total sales and purchases booked through circular trading. Assessment was accordingly completed u/s. 143(3) at an income