ACIT, MUMBAI vs. PV MEDIA VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is warranted to prevent any leakage of revenue. Thus, out of the total cash deposited of Rs.2,20,28,551/- during

P V MEDIA VISION PVT. LTD ,LOWER PAREL MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is warranted to prevent any leakage of revenue. Thus, out of the total cash deposited of Rs.2,20,28,551/- during

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

disallowance could have been made, we find have been made, we find that during the course of the survey that during the course of the survey carried out along with the search proceeding, carried out along with the search proceeding, Sh Rajesh Rajesh Munjapara was asked regarding entries of deposits in the bank account of his was asked regarding entries

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

disallowance could have been made, we find have been made, we find that during the course of the survey that during the course of the survey carried out along with the search proceeding, carried out along with the search proceeding, Sh Rajesh Rajesh Munjapara was asked regarding entries of deposits in the bank account of his was asked regarding entries

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

disallowance could have been made, we find have been made, we find that during the course of the survey that during the course of the survey carried out along with the search proceeding, carried out along with the search proceeding, Sh Rajesh Rajesh Munjapara was asked regarding entries of deposits in the bank account of his was asked regarding entries

ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowance of cash deposit was not justified. The cash sales are duly supported by VAT returns. The cash deposit during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowance of cash deposit was not justified. The cash sales are duly supported by VAT returns. The cash deposit during

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

deposited\nby assessee between 01.10.2016 to\n13.11.2016 and made addition under\nsection 68 on account of same It was\nnoted that in support of sales so made,\nassessee submitted all invoices with\ncomplete year cash book, names,\naddresses and telephone numbers of\npersons to whom cash sales were made\nOn this information Assessing Officer had\nnot made any independent inquiry

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits made by him as per his contention raised in the grounds of appeal. He thus failed to discharge the onus cast upon the grounds of appeal. He thus failed to discharge the onus cast upon the grounds of appeal. He thus failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. The fact is that money has no colour and merely

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

deposits made by him as per his contention raised in the grounds of appeal. He thus failed to discharge the onus cast upon the grounds of appeal. He thus failed to discharge the onus cast upon the grounds of appeal. He thus failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. The fact is that money has no colour and merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGHVI DHANRUPJI DEVAJI & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Income Tax Central Circle Devaji & Co. 5(3), Mumbai 33, Mumba Devi Road, Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, Dagina Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaqfs6338H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M B Sanghvi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ground I - Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting/Allowing Relief In Respect Of The Addition Of Rs.

deposits as sales of jewellery, produced sale bills and admitted same as revenue receipt as well as offered it to tax and assessee also represented outgo of stocks which was matching with sales, impugned addition was to be deleted. Relevant para of the judgment of the ITAT is reproduced hereunder: "9. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into

SMT. CHANDADEVI K RATHI,THANE vs. ITO WARD 18(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Chandadevi K. Rathi, Ito Ward-18(1)(3), B/502, Kailash Mansarovar, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Temba Road, Bhayandar (W), Vs. Earnest House, Thane-401 101. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aczpr 2750 F Appellant Respondent

cash deposits, the Ld. Assessing Officer made addition of ₹22,52,600/- to the returned income to the returned income vide his order dated his order dated 14.12.2016 in terms of section 143(3) of the Income 14.12.2016 in terms of section 143(3) of the Income 14.12.2016 in terms of section 143(3) of the Income

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act on long term capital gain claimed by the assessee. 7. The assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was completed based on the investigation report received from DDIT(Investigation), Unit-II (4), Hyderabad dated 24.10.2017. The Assessing Officer analyzed the detailed report of the DDIT (investigation), Hyderabad in his order, verified

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act on long term capital gain claimed by the assessee. 7. The assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was completed based on the investigation report received from DDIT(Investigation), Unit-II (4), Hyderabad dated 24.10.2017. The Assessing Officer analyzed the detailed report of the DDIT (investigation), Hyderabad in his order, verified

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

deposits. The\ngrounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.\n8. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2018-19. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are\nreproduced as under:\n1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw

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

deposits. The\ngrounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.\n8. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2018-19. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are\nreproduced as under:\n1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw

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

deposits. The\ngrounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.\n8.\nNow, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2018-19. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are\nreproduced as under:\n1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw

M/S. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1820/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

disallowed by Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the cash deposited

AMIT LALIT KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Amit Lalit Kapoor The Income Tax Officer, B–701, Supreme –19, Ward–16(1)(1), Lokhandwala, 3R D Cross Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apqpk1601N

disallowed expenditure of ₹47,85,384/- out of expenditure of ₹5,15,384/-. 04. He further found that assessee has deposited cash