LANXES INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Unexplained investments. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(3) CENTRAL RANGE-4 , MUMBAI vs. M/S GROWMORE RESEARCH AND ASSETS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Unexplained investments.\n\nWhere in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

SUDHIR S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

investment in shares\nof DCM Ltd. of 2500 shares are coming from earlier years as the same is\nopening balance. Similarly, 3900 shares of Eicher Motors which were\nopening balance of the assessee were only 200 shares with bonus of 400\nshares at the end of the impugned financial year. The holding of Golden\nProteins at 15,300 shares have

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s.14A without appreciating the fact that investment in shares was without appreciating the fact that investment in shares was without appreciating the fact that investment in shares was made in Somani and Company Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned made in Somani and Company Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned made in Somani and Company Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary

SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s.14A without appreciating the fact that investment in shares was without appreciating the fact that investment in shares was without appreciating the fact that investment in shares was made in Somani and Company Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned made in Somani and Company Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned made in Somani and Company Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN.CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SUDHIR SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

investment in shares\nDCM Ltd. of 2500 shares are coming from earlier years as the same is\nopening balance. Similarly, 3900 shares of Eicher Motors which were\nopening balance of the assessee were only 200 shares with bonus of 400\nshares at the end of the impugned financial year. The holding of Golden\nProteins at 15,300 shares have been

RITESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

investment in purchase of flat (ii) (ii) Unexplained Unexplained receipt of gift – ₹3,95,000/- (iii) Deemed rental income from house property – ₹7,73,500/- (iii) Deemed rental income from house property (iii) Deemed rental income from house property (iv) (iv) Unverified Unverified and and non-genuine non genuine expenses expenses – ₹62,505/- (v) (v) (v) Interest Interest Interest

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 for the reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing

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 for the reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing

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)

disallowances in such extended years, including those which may not directly relate to the said asset. 13.1. In other words, unless the gateway condition of the fourth proviso is demonstrably met through cogent material indicating the existence of such undisclosed asset, no addition, whether in the nature of unexplained income, expenditure, investment

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)

disallowances in such extended years, including those which may not directly relate to the said asset. 13.1. In other words, unless the gateway condition of the fourth proviso is demonstrably met through cogent material indicating the existence of such undisclosed asset, no addition, whether in the nature of unexplained income, expenditure, investment

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)

disallowances in such extended years, including those which may not directly relate to the said asset. 13.1. In other words, unless the gateway condition of the fourth proviso is demonstrably met through cogent material indicating the existence of such undisclosed asset, no addition, whether in the nature of unexplained income, expenditure, investment

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)

disallowances in such extended years, including those which may not directly relate to the said asset. 13.1. In other words, unless the gateway condition of the fourth proviso is demonstrably met through cogent material indicating the existence of such undisclosed asset, no addition, whether in the nature of unexplained income, expenditure, investment

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)

disallowances in such extended years, including those which may not directly relate to the said asset. 13.1. In other words, unless the gateway condition of the fourth proviso is demonstrably met through cogent material indicating the existence of such undisclosed asset, no addition, whether in the nature of unexplained income, expenditure, investment

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)

disallowances in such extended years, including those which may not directly relate to the said asset. 13.1. In other words, unless the gateway condition of the fourth proviso is demonstrably met through cogent material indicating the existence of such undisclosed asset, no addition, whether in the nature of unexplained income, expenditure, investment

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT -CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SMT PRATIMA H. MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the present cross-appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained, however, copies of these evidences were never provided to the assessee. In this regard, the learned AR referred to details of various letters requesting the AO/learned CIT(A) to provide the information received from the company on the basis of which addition was made. The learned AR further submitted that to the extent company letters were provided

PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present cross-appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained, however, copies of these evidences were never provided to the assessee. In this regard, the learned AR referred to details of various letters requesting the AO/learned CIT(A) to provide the information received from the company on the basis of which addition was made. The learned AR further submitted that to the extent company letters were provided

AJIV YASHWNAT PATIL,THANE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Ajiv Yashwant Patil Acit, Central Circle-3 103, Parijat Apartments, Gaothan, Thane Vs. Virar (W), Thane-401 303

unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs.37,62,530/- towards cost of improvement. 3. The Revenue, on the other hand, has challenged