ITO -33 (1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI KALPESH C.SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aajps 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/W Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

disallowance based solely relying on the statement of third person recorded in the course of relying on the statement of third person recorded in the course of relying on the statement of third person recorded in the course of the search, without there being any independent the search, without there being any independent the search, without there being any independent

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenses pertaining to other labour contractors, who are not part of the five individuals specifically mentioned in the statement of Shri Jiten Pujari. 31.3. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee with respect to the balance labour expenses, and we uphold the said findings. The ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenses pertaining to other labour contractors, who are not part of the five individuals specifically mentioned in the statement of Shri Jiten Pujari. 31.3. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee with respect to the balance labour expenses, and we uphold the said findings. The ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenses pertaining to other labour contractors, who are not part of the five individuals specifically mentioned in the statement of Shri Jiten Pujari. 31.3. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee with respect to the balance labour expenses, and we uphold the said findings. The ground

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenses pertaining to other labour contractors, who are not part of the five individuals specifically mentioned in the statement of Shri Jiten Pujari. 31.3. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee with respect to the balance labour expenses, and we uphold the said findings. The ground

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenses pertaining to other labour contractors, who are not part of the five individuals specifically mentioned in the statement of Shri Jiten Pujari. 31.3. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee with respect to the balance labour expenses, and we uphold the said findings. The ground

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenses pertaining to other labour contractors, who are not part of the five individuals specifically mentioned in the statement of Shri Jiten Pujari. 31.3. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee with respect to the balance labour expenses, and we uphold the said findings. The ground

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 132(4) of the Act stated that cash was received from Mr. Parag Vora. Considering these evidences, the Assessing Officer considered all the purchases made from Krishna Structure Pvt. Ltd as bogus and made disallowance under section 37 of the Act as under

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC -6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 132(4) of the Act stated that cash was received from Mr. Parag Vora. Considering these evidences, the Assessing Officer considered all the purchases made from Krishna Structure Pvt. Ltd as bogus and made disallowance under section 37 of the Act as under

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

section 292C, so that his interest calculation implies an understanding to that effect. Why, the assessee could have clarified that the payments shall be subject to interest, at the defined rate, deferring its receipt to the sale of the property. Again, there is nothing on record to indicate actual receipt of interest, or even the resources with the lonee

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

section 292C, so that his interest calculation implies an understanding to that effect. Why, the assessee could have clarified that the payments shall be subject to interest, at the defined rate, deferring its receipt to the sale of the property. Again, there is nothing on record to indicate actual receipt of interest, or even the resources with the lonee

CASCADE HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93 M/S. Cascade Holdings Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 19Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R.

292C or 132(4A) while completing the assessment and rejecting the Appellant's contention that presumptions raised under section 132(4A) of the Act cannot be used for making routine assessment. 3) On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's contention that the learned AO erred in making

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

292C of the Act and held that because and held that because those receipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the assessee therefore it was presumed that those belongs to the assessee therefore it was presumed that those

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

292C of the Act and held that because and held that because those receipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the assessee therefore it was presumed that those belongs to the assessee therefore it was presumed that those

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

292C of the Act and held that because and held that because those receipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the assessee therefore it was presumed that those belongs to the assessee therefore it was presumed that those

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PRADEEP PHULCHAND AGARWAL, MUMBAI

disallowance made under section I4A to the extent of tax exempt\nincome earned by the assessee during the year by overlooking the clarification\nof legislative intent provided by the CBDT vide Circular No. 5/2014 dated\n11.02.2014 and to this effect even an amendment was made by Finance Act,\n2022 by way of insertion of Explanation to Section 14A?\"\nThe appellant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3),, MUMBAI vs. PRADEEP PHULCHAND AGARWAL, MUMBAI

disallowance made under section I4A to the extent of tax exempt\nincome earned by the assessee during the year by overlooking the clarification\nof legislative intent provided by the CBDT vide Circular No. 5/2014 dated\n11.02.2014 and to this effect even an amendment was made by Finance Act,\n2022 by way of insertion of Explanation to Section 14A?\"\n\nThe

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRADEEP PHULCHAND AGARWAL, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

disallowance made under section I4A to the extent of tax exempt income earned by the assessee during the year by overlooking the clarification of legislative intent provided by the CBDT vide Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and to this effect even an amendment was made by Finance Act, 2022 by way of insertion of Explanation to Section 14A?" The appellant