KTK INFOTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 Ktk Infortronics I.T.O. Ward (2)(3) Private Limited Thane. Oceania B-101, Lodha Casa Rio, Kalyan Shil Road, Vs. Dombivali East, Thane-421 304. Pan: Aafck5888E (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetization period. 2. Lower amount disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) in ITR in comparison to tax audit report. 4. Accordingly

SRI. VIVEK RAMCHANDRA KAWADE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE-27(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the asessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit -27(3) Shri Vivek Ramchandra Room No. 423, 4Th Kawade Floor, Tower No. 6, B-11, Sita Estate, Mahul Vashi Rly Stn, Vashi Road, Chembur, Mumbai – Navi Mumbai – 400 400074. 703. Pan/Gir No. Bgtpk5019H (Applicant) (Respondent)

demonetization period was disallowed and taxed accordingly . 3. Against the order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal but the same was rejected/dismissed

CONTROL PRINT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400059 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

demonetization period and disallowance is called for under section 69A of the Act without appreciating that all relevant details in respect

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of salary expense of Rs. 48,57,67,893/- on account of difference of reporting made in financial statements and TDS returns treating the same as "out of books expense";  Addition on account of cash deposit made of Specified Bank Notes during demonetization

STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED,TAMIL NADU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 2(3)(1),, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of salary expense of Rs. 48,57,67,893/- on account of difference of reporting made in financial statements and TDS returns treating the same as "out of books expense";  Addition on account of cash deposit made of Specified Bank Notes during demonetization

PRIYA SUDHIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER-CIRCLE 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

demonetization date amounting to Rs.14 Lakh was disallowed even though the assessee had cash balance of Rs.23,61,680/- as on 01.04.2016. 4.2 The Ld. AR prayed

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)

demonetization period. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of INR.24,37,53,214/- by invoking the provisions of Section

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

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

demonetization period. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of INR.24,37,53,214/- by invoking the provisions of Section

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

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

demonetization period. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of INR.24,37,53,214/- by invoking the provisions of Section

HITESH JOITKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI CENTRAL vs. ACIT CIRCLE-20(2) MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER

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

demonetization. The AO treated these deposits as unexplained cash credit, disallowing purchases from certain suppliers identified as accommodation entry providers

VAIBHAV VINOD AGGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

demonetization was not abnormal. All details were provided to the lower authorities. The lower authorities have not disputed the cash sales. Once, cash sales and sale on credit have been accepted then the 4 Vaibhav Vinod Aggarwal disallowance

JANYUVAK KALYAN CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

demonetization period. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the „Act‟) on 07.12.2019 disallowing the deduction

MARWADI YUVA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,KALYAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period to the tune of Rs.50,29,344/- as undisclosed income u/s.69A of the Act and also disallowed the deduction

WINES 2000 AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 27(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed and added to the total\nincome of the assessee.\n4.1 He further noticed that the assessee had made total cash\ndeposit amounting to Rs.1,28,88,090/- during the demonetization

CLARENCE FONSECA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

disallowance of 10% of the addition would be sufficient.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["69A", "143(3)", "44AD"], "issues": "Whether the addition of Rs. 24,81,000 as unexplained cash deposit during demonetization

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

demonetization He\ncontended that same were proceeds of\ncash sales Assessing Officer observed\nthat assessee failed to explain source of\nsuch huge cash deposit He thereby\ninvoked provision of section 145(3)\nand rejected book results Further,\nhe did not consider sales to tune of\nRs.37.96 lakhs out of cash deposited\nby assessee between 01.10.2016 to\n13.11.2016 and made addition

OM SAI RAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

demonetization period. 2. The Ld. AO gave show-cause notice on both the counts and gave an opportunity to the appellant before making addition/disallowance. As there is no reply from the appellant, deduction claimed was disallowed

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 in bank account during demonetization