SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

SUNNY VIJAY LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 28(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on , and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIR-18(1), MUMBAI

penny stock companies were listed on the stock\nexchange, however, the same were closely held and controlled by\nShri Vipul Vidur Bhatt. In this regard, the AO placed reliance upon\nthe statement recorded under section 132(4) of Mr. Vipul Vidur\nBhatt. In his statement, Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt admitted that all the\nentities were managed and controlled

ANANT VIJAY DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing present appeals filed by the assessees before for A.Y. 2012-13 before this Tribunal’s stand condoned. 5 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Brief Facts of the case are as under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains

GIRIRAJ DAULAL DAMANI HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHEMBERS

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing present appeals filed by the assessees before for A.Y. 2012-13 before this Tribunal’s stand condoned. 5 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Brief Facts of the case are as under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains

RADHIKA ANANT DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHEMBER, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing present appeals filed by the assessees before for A.Y. 2012-13 before this Tribunal’s stand condoned. 5 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Brief Facts of the case are as under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains

NAROTTAM DAULAL DAMANI HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHEMBER

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing present appeals filed by the assessees before for A.Y. 2012-13 before this Tribunal’s stand condoned. 5 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Brief Facts of the case are as under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains

PRADIPKUMAR HARAKCHAND DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO , WARD-19(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepradipkumar Harakchand Doshi V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) 94/100, 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Grant Road 2Nd Pathan Street Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aahpd4722B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

condone the delay of 174 days and admit the appeal for disposing off the same on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed his return of income on 12.09.2015 declaring total income at ₹.13,72,670/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the notice under section

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

KISHOR JETHALAL MORBIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding 7. before the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual, has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 53,84,950/-. However as per the information available on record, the assessee

ARUN KUMAR SARUP,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankararun Kumar Sarup Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Amartara Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Circle Saki Vihar Road, Powai, 1(1)(1), Mumbai Mumbai – 400072. 553, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavn, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aahps2384Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

condonation of the delay stands allowed. The appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 5 Arun Kumar Sarup 5. Ground No. 2 & 3, Both these grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by AO u/s 69 of the Act. Therefore, we have

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT4(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is not admitted

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

penny stock Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd transactions; (iii) addition of transactions; (iii) addition of ₹11,08,57,180/- under section 69C for under section 69C for unexplained expenditure; (iv) addition of lained expenditure; (iv) addition of ₹14,58,70,458/ 14,58,70,458/- being 1% of the transaction value of of the transaction

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

penny stock and long term capital gains arising there from on which the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was denied. The findings of the Assessing Officer were confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. 13. We find that in the instant case the Assessing Officer has not carried

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

penny stock and long term capital gains arising there from on which the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was denied. The findings of the Assessing Officer were confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. 13. We find that in the instant case the Assessing Officer has not carried

VASANTLAL NYALCHAND KIKVAT THROUGH L/H PANKAJ V KIKAVAT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 3 (4), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7921/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7922/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), 1915, 19Th Floor (Through L/H Shri Pankaj V.Kikavat) बिाम/ 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Air India Building Vs. Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Nariman Point Mumbai-400 077 Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6317-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

delay was to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed for adjudication of the appeals on merits. 1.3 The Ld. AR, drawing our attention to the documents as placed in the paper-book, assailed the additions on the ground that the additions are arbitrary and made on mere suspicion & conjectures. It was submitted that there is no corroborative material on record

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. HARESH KUMAR MANJIBHAI PATEL, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

penny stocks. 16.2. More significantly, when the assessee sold his shares during June to August 2017, Shri Dipan Patel was no longer a director of the company. The shares continued to remain listed and actively traded on the stock exchange. The learned Counsel rightly emphasised that the names of the assessee and his broker do not figure in the list

RATTAN JODHARAM HARCHWANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay.\n4. Facts of the case as per the assessment order are that the Assessing Officer received an information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs 4.36 cr. in his bank account with Konark Urban\nPage 4\nITA No. 5771/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2016-17\nRattan Jodharam Harchwani\nCoop. Bank, Ulhasnagar from 07.11.2013 to 20.04.2015.No return of income