M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed peak amount of unexplained money mount of unexplained money of Rs. of Rs. 17,28,507/-. utilised for purchase

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

disallowed peak amount of unexplained money mount of unexplained money of Rs. of Rs. 17,28,507/-. utilised for purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue has been rendered as dismissed, in terms\nof our aforesaid observations

unexplained\nmoney u/s.69A cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted. In the result this ground of\nappeal is allowed.\"\n5. Since the appeal of assessee is allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits and deleted the\naddition u/s 69A, treating the same as not sustainable, the department being aggrieved\nhad filed the present appeal raising the issue that

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

money) Assessment year\n2017-18 Assessee deposited cash of\nRs.50 lakhs in his bank account\nduring period of demonetization He\ncontended that same were proceeds of\ncash sales Assessing Officer observed\nthat assessee failed to explain source of\nsuch huge cash deposit He thereby\ninvoked provision of section 145(3)\nand rejected book results Further,\nhe did not consider sales

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

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

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

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 CHARGE-8(3), MUMBAI vs. ESTATE OF LATE SHRI RAMNIKLAL RAJMAL MEHTA- EXECUTOR SHRI DILIP RAMNIKLAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

disallowance of ₹ 188,65,84,826/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of Estate of late Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) as unexplained money

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹15,59,67,710/ 15,59,67,710/– under Section 143(3) of the Act under Section 143(3) of the Act vide

DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹15,59,67,710/ 15,59,67,710/– under Section 143(3) of the Act under Section 143(3) of the Act vide

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI vs. F A CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

disallowance of expenses were not sustained due to the lack of adverse material or specific defects pointed out by the AO and the compliance of the assessee with business requirements.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "69A", "40A(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the cash withdrawals made by the assessee from disclosed bank accounts for business purposes are to be treated as unexplained money

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

unexplained money or expenditure stand deleted; (iii) assessments reopened under section 147 are quashed as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A; and (iv) the assessment orders themselves are invalidated for non- compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

unexplained money or expenditure stand deleted; (iii) assessments reopened under section 147 are quashed as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A; and (iv) the assessment orders themselves are invalidated for non- compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance made under Section 14A? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/-out of the total addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money

HUBTOWN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance made under Section 14A? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/-out of the total addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money