SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRADING & EDUCATION CENTRE P.LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Swami Vivekanand Trading & Education Centre P. Ltd. Dcit-4(3) 6-3-655/2/3 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Somajigudda, Hyderabad, Mumbai-400 082 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs1050N Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2024

unexplained sale application money. 011. On the first issue of the depreciation it is apparent that assessee has claimed depreciation

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

unexplained liabilities in his balance sheet which amounted to Rs. 6,70,30,000/-. This liability included amount . This liability included amount of Rs. 8,80,000/ of Rs. 8,80,000/- from Mr. Rakesh Surve and Rs. 35,00,000/ from Mr. Rakesh Surve and Rs. 35,00,000/- from Shree Mukund from Shree Mukund Associates. The AO made

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

unexplained liabilities in his balance sheet which amounted to Rs. 6,70,30,000/-. This liability included amount . This liability included amount of Rs. 8,80,000/ of Rs. 8,80,000/- from Mr. Rakesh Surve and Rs. 35,00,000/ from Mr. Rakesh Surve and Rs. 35,00,000/- from Shree Mukund from Shree Mukund Associates. The AO made

M/S. C. M.. BRIGHT BARS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2122 & 2123/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Cm Bright Bars Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(1) Ltd,705, B Wing, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Kamal, Dr. Babasaheb M.K.Road, Ambekar Road, Churchgate, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4577A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. Ar Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

unexplained share application money of Rs. 3,75,00,000/-. Such addition is bad in law & erroneous in facts and therefore liable to be deleted. 5. Disallowance of Depreciation

PRAKASH JHA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation claimed, however, over a period of time, standard deduction of 30% of rent received under the head ITAs No. 323/Mum/2016 & 5051/Mum/2017 income from house property is more beneficial to the assessee As the issue is litigated ever year and is tax neutral over a period of time, the assessee seeks resolve the contentions issue by withdrawing his appeal

PRAKASH JHA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation claimed, however, over a period of time, standard deduction of 30% of rent received under the head ITAs No. 323/Mum/2016 & 5051/Mum/2017 income from house property is more beneficial to the assessee As the issue is litigated ever year and is tax neutral over a period of time, the assessee seeks resolve the contentions issue by withdrawing his appeal

KAIZEN GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Kaizen Global Services Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited,301, Raheja बिधम/ Income Tax - 10(3), Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai. Vs. Near Yashraj Studio, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aacck2642K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

unexplained cash credit and Rs. 52,36,291/- on account of share application money. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the invocation of provision of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

ITO 14(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. NEXTGEN CONSTRUCTIONS P.TLD (CHANGED TO M/S AETIUS CONSTRUCTION P. LTD WHICH IS FURTHER AMALGAMATED WITH M/S SUPERGOLD PROPERTIES PVT. LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation of Rs.64,766, being @ 30% of Rs.2,15,887. Despite this poor performance in business, Unsecured loans of the assessee increased from Rs.4,22,45,712 (as on 01-04-2010) to Rs.28,26,30,000 (as on 31-03-2011), which included loan from Meenaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The loan amount increased from Rs.29

ZARINA NOORALI GOVANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Mrs. Zarina Noorali Govani Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3) Flat No. 1, Hill View Chs Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Hill Road, Bandra (W) Vs. Mumbai 400050 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Agbpg9171D

depreciation, assessee has shown net profit at Rs.48,856/-. The AO further observed that on perusal of statement of bank account NO.00510400010078 for the period 01/04/2004 to 31/03/2005 maintained by the assessee in Development Credit Bank, Bandra branch, it is seen that during the relevant previous year, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.19,25,590/- and deposited Rs.5

DY CIT CC 7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN GLOBAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable asset was found pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. The ld. AR submitted that since instant assessment year under consideration has attained finality on the date of search as there was no pending assessment on the date of search. Thus the assessment has not abated for the purpose of section 153A

ROYAL CHAINS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed\nand appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

depreciation of Rs.23,13,135/-.\n2. 3. The Ld.AO further observed that there was unaccounted stock\nof 22KT and 18KT gold based on survey conducted at the premises\nof the assessee u/s 133A dated 07/09/2018 by the DDIT,\nInvestigation Wing, Mumbai. Based on the statements recorded,\nThe Ld.AO came to the conclusion that the stock of 7000 grams of\n24KT

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

unexplained cash or other assets are found in the hands of the Assessee Company and this facts is also not in dispute. In grounds of appeal no.6 of the department, it is alleged that unexplained investment in immovable or other assets are found in the hands of the promoters and addition made in their hands. We are afraid

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

unexplained cash or other assets are found in the hands of the Assessee Company and this facts is also not in dispute. In grounds of appeal no.6 of the department, it is alleged that unexplained investment in immovable or other assets are found in the hands of the promoters and addition made in their hands. We are afraid

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

unexplained cash or other assets are found in the hands of the Assessee Company and this facts is also not in dispute. In grounds of appeal no.6 of the department, it is alleged that unexplained investment in immovable or other assets are found in the hands of the promoters and addition made in their hands. We are afraid

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

unexplained cash or other assets are found in the hands of the Assessee Company and this facts is also not in dispute. In grounds of appeal no.6 of the department, it is alleged that unexplained investment in immovable or other assets are found in the hands of the promoters and addition made in their hands. We are afraid

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

unexplained cash or other assets are found in the hands of the Assessee Company and this facts is also not in dispute. In grounds of appeal no.6 of the department, it is alleged that unexplained investment in immovable or other assets are found in the hands of the promoters and addition made in their hands. We are afraid

HEMANT V.PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Hemant V. Parikh Asst. Cit, Central Circle 3(2) 703, 704, Krushal Tower, Mumbai-400 021 Above Shoppers Stop, G M Road, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400 089

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act by ignoring the submissions made by the appellant. 4 Hemant V. Parikh vs. Asst. CIT 24) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's towards addition of Rs. 26,231/- towards negative cash balance

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

depreciation on the cost incurred @ 25%. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on the cost of construction of jetty as the entire cost being reimbursed by GMB by way of rebate on the wharfage charges which otherwise the assessee was liable to pay in full. Further, the right to use the jetty