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 ()

cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating material was unearthed in case of the appellant during

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 ()

cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating material was unearthed in case of the appellant during

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 ()

cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating material was unearthed in case of the appellant during

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 ()

cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating material was unearthed in case of the appellant during

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 ()

cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating material was unearthed in case of the appellant during

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 ()

cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating material was unearthed in case of the appellant during

DCIT, CC-3(3), MUMBAI vs. MURARILAL R. MITTAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Murarilal Income-Tax, Central Vs. R. Mittal Circle-3(3), Mumbai 1601 Marathon Room No. 1923, Air Heights, Pb Marg, India Building, 19Th Lower Parel (W), Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan No. Ahnpm8021D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021

cash deposit and the Tribunal decision was reversed by Hon'ble High Court. The learned Counsel of the assessee has not rebutted the case. This also finds no reference in the order written by learned Brother. 3. Before adverting to the facts in this case it is noted that this is the case of reopening within four years

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

cash deposits for the aforesaid period. 6. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above.” 5. The Assessee, a public listed limited company, filed return of income on 31/10/2017 declaring total income at ‘Nil’ under normal provisions of the Act after setting off unabsorbed depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

cash deposits for the aforesaid period. 6. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above.” 5. The Assessee, a public listed limited company, filed return of income on 31/10/2017 declaring total income at ‘Nil’ under normal provisions of the Act after setting off unabsorbed depreciation

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

cash deposits for the aforesaid period. 6. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above.” 5. The Assessee, a public listed limited company, filed return of income on 31/10/2017 declaring total income at ‘Nil’ under normal provisions of the Act after setting off unabsorbed depreciation

VIJAY M. HARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vijay M. Haria Income Tax Officer-13(3)(21) 502, Sharda Chambers No.2 Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Vs. Bhat Bazar, Masjid Bunder Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400003 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabph1129C Appellant Respondent

cash deposits of `25,93,000/- in his undisclosed bank account with Corporation Bank, Mandvi, Mumbai and consequently dismiss grounds 2(i) to (iii) of the assessee’s appeal. 7. Ground No. 3(i) 7.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO’s action in denying the assessee the benefit

ASAD NAEEMUDDIN MOULVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (WD)- 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(2), Room No. 8/9/10, 3Rd Floor, Faiz- 4Th Floor, Earnest House, E-Akhtar, 27, Memonwada Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Afcpm 8595 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

cash deposits by the assessee. The assessee shall file all the necessary evidence in support of its claim including necessary evidence in support of its claim including certificate from the airlines regarding booking of tickets the airlines regarding booking of tickets by the assessee in by the assessee in individual capacity (not by individual capacity (not by the partnership firm

DY CIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LEENA POOWER TECH ENGINEERS P LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

deposits in some bank accounts, the receipts cannot be rejected as lacking bonafides. Learned counsel then submits that in the reasons recorded for reopening, there is not even a suggestion about lapses on the part of the assessee, and the reassessment being after the end of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the proviso

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

cash deposit –Rs.3,00,000/- (iii) Short term capital gain on sale of depreciable assets – Rs. 99,01,531/-“ 4.3 So far as quantum

PRADNYA MUNDE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

deposits in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 4. The ground No.2 raised by the assessee is challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs.6,00,000/- made on account of gift received by the 6 Smt. Pradnya Munde assessee from Gopinath Munde HUF by treating the same

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

deposit of their cash, as well as by the directors of the investors compa the investors companies, admitting to the transaction beign bogus nies, admitting to the transaction beign bogus inasmuch as they are only providing accommodation entries for a inasmuch as they are only providing accommodation entries for a inasmuch as they are only providing accommodation entries

JET FREIGHT LOGISTICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Us. We Find That The Order Is Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) During The Covid Pandemic Period & Accordingly, In View Of The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay Of 85 Days In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Adjudication.

deposits made by the assessee during the period 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 in Specified Bank Notes in the sum of Rs.2,48,87,000 stood properly explained by the availability of cash balance in its books and hence, no addition thereon could be made u/s.68 of the Act. We direct the ld. AO to delete the said addition. Accordingly, the ground

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, , MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

cash. However, there is no corroborative material that in which bank account the fixed deposits have been placed. However, as the assessee contends that this fixed deposit mentioned in page no. 22 is already included in the fixed deposits owned and disclosed by the assessee. We set aside this issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with