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

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

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,00,95,760/- treating all current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit. It consists of unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/- and current ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 30 liabilities of Rs.1,28,67,000/- against various parties/ narrations

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,00,95,760/- treating all current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit. It consists of unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/- and current ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 30 liabilities of Rs.1,28,67,000/- against various parties/ narrations

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,00,95,760/- treating all current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit. It consists of unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/- and current ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 30 liabilities of Rs.1,28,67,000/- against various parties/ narrations

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,00,95,760/- treating all current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit. It consists of unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/- and current ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 30 liabilities of Rs.1,28,67,000/- against various parties/ narrations

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,00,95,760/- treating all current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit. It consists of unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/- and current ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 30 liabilities of Rs.1,28,67,000/- against various parties/ narrations

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

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

disallowable u/s 40A(3) of the Act. CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted cash financial manifest cash sales but these

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

disallowable u/s 40A(3) of the Act. CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted cash financial manifest cash sales but these

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