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 ()

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the 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 ()

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the 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 ()

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the 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 ()

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the 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 ()

delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

condonation of the\ndelay in filing the appeal. In our opinion there is a sufficient and\nbonafide reason for delay in filing the appeal, accordingly, we\ncondone the delay in the filing the appeal and admit the same for\nadjudication.\n4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, a private\nlimited company, was incorporated in the year

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

condonation of the\ndelay in filing the appeal. In our opinion there is a sufficient and\nbonafide reason for delay in filing the appeal, accordingly, we\ncondone the delay in the filing the appeal and admit the same for\nadjudication.\n4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, a private\nlimited company, was incorporated in the year

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAKAR BHAVAN vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

condonation of the\ndelay in filing the appeal. In our opinion there is a sufficient and\nbonafide reason for delay in filing the appeal, accordingly, we\ncondone the delay in the filing the appeal and admit the same for\nadjudication.\n4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, a private\nlimited company, was incorporated in the year

KESARAM CHATARARAMJI CHOUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(21)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

cash deposits of as unexplained, bringing the same to tax. bringing the same to tax. 4. In appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income In appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income In appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee again failed to comply with the notices (Appeals), the assessee again failed to comply with

BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito-Mum-W(443)(1), 411, Kewal Indl. Estate, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Karve, Road, New Marine Mumbai-400013. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaapz 0864 D Appellant Respondent

delay of 442 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned and of 442 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned of 442 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned proceeded to adjudicate proceeded to adjudicate the matter on merits. Bharat Nathalal Zaveri 4.2 On merits, it is undisputed that the assessee remained non On merits

MASTERJI & CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

deposit of cash in the bank account. We take up appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 as the lead case to draw the facts and give our observations and findings which shall apply mutatis mutandis for the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. 4. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of six days in filing

MASTERJI & CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

deposit of cash in the bank account. We take up appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 as the lead case to draw the facts and give our observations and findings which shall apply mutatis mutandis for the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. 4. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of six days in filing

HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

deposited in the bank account during demonetisation period were out of gifts received in cash from the family members. 2. The Appellant prays to set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). 3. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the above. 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend

SHRI KISHORE MOHANLAL DINGRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-41(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra, Dy. Cit Circle 41(1)(1), 105, Dosti Ambrosia S.M. Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. Kb/614, Vs. Mumbai-400037. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Atxpd 4896 P Appellant Respondent

cash deposit of Rs.93,16,000/ Rs.93,16,000/- as per the provisions of section 69A rws 115BBE as per the provisions of section 69A rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) The Learned NF 3) The Learned NFAC has erred in law & on facts in upholding AC has erred

VAIBHAV VINOD AGGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

cash deposit visa-vis turnover is not abnormal. The lower authorities have not rejected the books of account nor were books result disturbed. The ld AR of the assessee prayed for deleting the entire addition. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay

DAWAT E ISLAMI HIND,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

cash deposits in SBNs 3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in directing for fresh verification of allowance of deduction u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act which was disallowed by the Ld. A.O. in order u/s. 143(3) of the Act but later on allowed by passing rectification order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THANE., THANE vs. AKSHAYA ASHOK GHOLE, THANE

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

delay the same is hereby condoned and the case is adjudicated on me is hereby condoned and the case is adjudicated on me is hereby condoned and the case is adjudicated on merits. The facts of the case are as follows : merits. The facts of the case are as follows : a) The Ld. AO issued 6 hearing notices, and there

ZAKIR ALI YARBALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (1)95), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai, erred on facts and in law in confirming addition to income of cash deposit