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

UMASHANKER SHIWAPRASAD MODI,THANE vs. CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Umashanker Modi Income Tax Department, Office No. D, 12Th Floor, Mbc Park, National Faceless Appeals Vs. D Building, Near Hypercity, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Ghodbunder Road, Kasarvadavali, Thane West, Thane- 400615. Pan No. Aabpm 8785 D Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credit under section 68 without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the same with opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the same with opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the same with documentary evidence. documentary evidence. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer further erred in disallowing 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer further erred in disallo

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

unexplained cash credit. Accordingly ground no 3 & 4 are allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal and the assessee has filed cross objection with the Honble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that there is delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit Rs.8,12,16,818/- c) Disallowance of bonafide depreciation Rs.1,19,08,429/- d) Ad-hoc @25% disallowance of expenses Rs.4,70,54,434/-” 6. In this case, there is a delay of 499 days and CIT(A) has given the same reasoning as in a quantum appeal in Para 3.6 to 3.9 which reads as under

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit Rs.8,12,16,818/- c) Disallowance of bonafide depreciation Rs.1,19,08,429/- d) Ad-hoc @25% disallowance of expenses Rs.4,70,54,434/-” 6. In this case, there is a delay of 499 days and CIT(A) has given the same reasoning as in a quantum appeal in Para 3.6 to 3.9 which reads as under

DCIT CC, 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NOUVEAU GLOBAL VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes whereas cross statistical purposes whereas cross-objections of the assessee are of the assessee are dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital of the Act in respect of share capital raised during the year. Cross-objection of the Assessee objection of the Assessee 1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating Gr. No. 1 of Grounds of Appeal 1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SYSTEMATIX HOLDINGS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adj the delay and admit the appeal for adj the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its facts of the case are that the assessee filed its facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return

NAVEEN KISHOR MOHNOT,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of ₹.6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny

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 ()

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act purely on assumption and presumption without bringing purely on assumption and presumption without bringing purely on assumption and presumption without bringing said expenditure. said expenditure. 5. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew At the outset, the learned Counsel

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 ()

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act purely on assumption and presumption without bringing purely on assumption and presumption without bringing purely on assumption and presumption without bringing said expenditure. said expenditure. 5. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew At the outset, the learned Counsel

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 ()

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act purely on assumption and presumption without bringing purely on assumption and presumption without bringing purely on assumption and presumption without bringing said expenditure. said expenditure. 5. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew At the outset, the learned Counsel