ASST.CIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NANUBHAI N DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 being differential amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 despite th 31.03.2016 despite the fact that the assessee had not submitted

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NANUBHAI N DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 being differential amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 despite th 31.03.2016 despite the fact that the assessee had not submitted

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

cash credit and on account of\nunexplained payments for purchases made\noutside the books can be made once the\nnet profit rate is applied on contract\nreceipts of an assessee for estimating his\nincome from contract work\". The Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT\nvs. BanwarilalBanshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR\n0229 had taken a similar view

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

disallowance could have been made to the extent of payments made to credit of payments made to credit card and not expenses incurred or and not expenses incurred or credit amount from credit cards credit amount from credit cards. It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) . It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has carried out due verification

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

disallowance could have been made to the extent of payments made to credit of payments made to credit card and not expenses incurred or and not expenses incurred or credit amount from credit cards credit amount from credit cards. It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) . It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has carried out due verification

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

unexplained cash credits can be reasonably related to the amount covered by the intangible additions M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. made in the past or in that very year, necessary set off may be given by the authorities on that account. In each case, the true nature of the cash credit must be ascertained from an overall consideration

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

unexplained cash credits can be reasonably related to the amount covered by the intangible additions M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. made in the past or in that very year, necessary set off may be given by the authorities on that account. In each case, the true nature of the cash credit must be ascertained from an overall consideration

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 ()

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the appellant for the year. As mentioned earlier, during appellate appellant

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 ()

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the appellant for the year. As mentioned earlier, during appellate appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

cash credits. In section 68 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year and he offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the sum so credited "may" be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The word "may" has been deliberately

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

cash credits. In section 68 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year and he offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the sum so credited "may" be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The word "may" has been deliberately

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-32(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S DISHA CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle 32(1), M/S Disha Construction, Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, 201, Square One, Gulmohar Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Road No. 1, Ville Parle (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400049. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadfd 9171 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashok Bansal, Mr. Ajay Daga Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 19/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2023

unexplained cash credit and interest disallowance following the and interest disallowance following the binding precedent in the case of the assessee

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. G NINE MODULAR PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition for the disallowance

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. G NINE MODULAR PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition for the disallowance

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. G NINE MODULAR PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition for the disallowance

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credits. Accordingly the relevant Grounds are dismissed. the relevant Grounds are dismissed. 5.3 The Appellant has al 5.3 The Appellant has also filed a Ground that the AO erred in so filed a Ground that the AO erred in calculating deduction under chapter VI by not allowing calculating deduction under chapter VI by not allowing calculating deduction under

UMASHANKER SHIWAPRASAD MODI,THANE vs. CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Umashanker Modi Income Tax Department, Office No. D, 12Th Floor, Mbc Park, National Faceless Appeals Vs. D Building, Near Hypercity, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Ghodbunder Road, Kasarvadavali, Thane West, Thane- 400615. Pan No. Aabpm 8785 D Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credit under section 68 without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the same with opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the same with opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the same with documentary evidence. documentary evidence. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer further erred in disallowing

FAIYAZ YUNUS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Faiyaz Yunus Patel, Ito-27(1)(4), Flat No. 602, Vmk Chs, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Tower Vs. Lbs Marg, Chirag Nagar, No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Akxpp 9040 L Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in relation to cash deposits received in various bank accounts from the retailers deposits received in various bank accounts from the retailers deposits received in various bank accounts from the retailers Secondly Secondly, against ‘Vodafone Vodafone M M-Pesa’ service facility. the disallowance