VINAYA PRASANNA KULKARNI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), 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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

unexplained money may please be deleted. please be deleted. GROUND III Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni A. On the facts and circumstances A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the of the case, and in Law, the learned ITO Ward 4(1) Thane ("AO") erred adding Rs.88,656/ learned ITO Ward 4(1) Thane

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DESAI ROAD vs. CIT (APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes in above terms

unexplained income or suppression of\nincome involved in such activities. If delay is not condoned it will lead to great\nhardship and due to Income Tax arrears burden, the financial resource would\ncurtail to the greater extent. As on today all the members of the society are from\nthe middle class have realized their mistake and folly and ignoring their

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

unexplained money u/s 69A. It is pleaded that The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condo may be provided and application for condonation of delay

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

unexplained money u/s 69A. It is pleaded that The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condo may be provided and application for condonation of delay

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

money income within the meaning of u/s 69A of Act, are wrong insufficient and meaning of u/s 69A of Act, are wrong insufficient and meaning of u/s 69A of Act, are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(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 Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions

ORICON ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

unexplained money of the two vouchers dated 14/06/2006 and 08/06/2006 representing the cash transaction and further adding Rs.15 lakh as unaccounted sales on the basis of loose papers recovered during the course of search. 2. During hearing, none was present for the assessee, whereas, Shri Subhacham Ram, ld. CIT-DR, was present for the Revenue. It is seen that this

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

JAYESH HIRJI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

delay is condoned and we admit the appeals. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessee was unable to receive proper opportunity of hearing including before the Assessing Officer and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld Assessing officer and hence the order

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH (HUF), JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

KETAN V. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned

DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI vs. KETAN V. SHAH, JALNA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2118-2121/Mum/2013, (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2004-05 & 2006-07)

condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal late by the asessee before learned CIT(A) and the matter was remitted back to learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits, vide common orders dated 15-09-2010 in ITA No. 6089-6094/Mum/2009 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 passed by the tribunal. The learned