RINA S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

unexplained investments. In our opinion, the investments made by the assessee have been explained with the source of funds arranged from three brokerage firms. In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of related entities M/s. Hitesh S. Mehta vs. ACIT (supra) wherein the addition

GROWMORE RESEARCH AND ASSETS MANAGEMENT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT-31, MUMBAI

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

unexplained investment should be made. The ground ground No.1(b) of the appeal is accordingly accordingly allowed for statistical statistical purposes. 10. The ground No. 2(a) of the appeal relates to ground No. 2(a) of the appeal relates to the ground No. 2(a) of the appeal relates to addition

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

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

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

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

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

unexplained investment has to be computed on the basis of rate prevailing as on the date of actual purchase. 9. 12. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. It is the contention of the assessee that there is nocompany exists in the name of NBS Industries. In that case, it is not discernible

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

APURVA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 8(2) (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CENT. CIR. - 45), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained investment in jewelry worth Rs.27,20,225/-but declared the same in the return of income as undisclosed income and paid taxes in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceeding , the assessee further declared undisclosed income due to failure on the part of the assessee to explain the source of investment of the jewelry worth

SHWETA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained investment in jewelry worth Rs.27,20,225/-but declared the same in the return of income as undisclosed income and paid taxes in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceeding , the assessee further declared undisclosed income due to failure on the part of the assessee to explain the source of investment of the jewelry worth

ASHISH AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained investment in jewelry worth Rs.27,20,225/-but declared the same in the return of income as undisclosed income and paid taxes in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceeding , the assessee further declared undisclosed income due to failure on the part of the assessee to explain the source of investment of the jewelry worth

KISHORE AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained investment in jewelry worth Rs.27,20,225/-but declared the same in the return of income as undisclosed income and paid taxes in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceeding , the assessee further declared undisclosed income due to failure on the part of the assessee to explain the source of investment of the jewelry worth

PUSHPA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained investment in jewelry worth Rs.27,20,225/-but declared the same in the return of income as undisclosed income and paid taxes in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceeding , the assessee further declared undisclosed income due to failure on the part of the assessee to explain the source of investment of the jewelry worth

STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

disallowance made by Addl. CIT in relation to the provision for depreciation on investments of Rs. 26,554,000 on the basis that investments in debentures under consideration is shown under the head 'Investments' and not under the head 'Stock-in trade' in its Balance-Sheet. The Appellant submits that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submissions made

ASST CIT 1(2)1, MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

disallowance made by Addl. CIT in relation to the provision for depreciation on investments of Rs. 26,554,000 on the basis that investments in debentures under consideration is shown under the head 'Investments' and not under the head 'Stock-in trade' in its Balance-Sheet. The Appellant submits that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submissions made

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), , MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained investment in various year of the search period. According to the Assessing Officer, the amount in fixed deposit had been invested by way of inflating the expenses, which had been debited in various partnership firms, withdrawal from the year wise expenditure booked in various partnership firm of the group. The Assessing Officer worked out the year wise expense ratio