BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,161 results for “house property”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,325Mumbai1,161Chennai440Bangalore384Jaipur304Hyderabad252Kolkata207Chandigarh156Ahmedabad119Karnataka110Cochin102Pune89Indore72Amritsar63Surat52Nagpur52Visakhapatnam51Lucknow51Calcutta40Telangana37Raipur34Rajkot33Guwahati28Agra27Cuttack26SC10Patna10Allahabad9Varanasi8Rajasthan7Jodhpur6Jabalpur5Dehradun4Kerala2Ranchi1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)83Addition to Income74Section 6838Section 153A26Section 69C23Section 25022Disallowance22Section 143(2)20Section 14818

JALAJA SADHU MOOLYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29 (1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6697/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jalaja Sadhu Moolya, Income Tax Officer-23(2)(3), C/4, Block No. 51, Gokul Ashish Chs, C-10, First Floor, Room No. 107, Dr. R.P. Road, Mulund (West), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra- Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Allpm 8887 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jalaja Sadhu Moolya, Income Tax Officer-29(1)(5), C/4, Block No. 51, Gokul Ashish Chs, C-10, First Floor, Room No. 107, Dr. R.P. Road, Mulund (West), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra- Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Allpm 8887 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Ramchandran, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Sr. DR
Section 68

property, was not produced for was not produced for verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer are reproduced as under: Assessing Officer are reproduced as under

Showing 1–20 of 1,161 · Page 1 of 59

...
Deduction18
Cash Deposit18
Section 13217

JALAJA SADHU MOOLYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7734/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jalaja Sadhu Moolya, Income Tax Officer-23(2)(3), C/4, Block No. 51, Gokul Ashish Chs, C-10, First Floor, Room No. 107, Dr. R.P. Road, Mulund (West), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra- Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Allpm 8887 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jalaja Sadhu Moolya, Income Tax Officer-29(1)(5), C/4, Block No. 51, Gokul Ashish Chs, C-10, First Floor, Room No. 107, Dr. R.P. Road, Mulund (West), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra- Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Allpm 8887 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Ramchandran, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Sr. DR
Section 68

property, was not produced for was not produced for verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer are reproduced as under: Assessing Officer are reproduced as under

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7219/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7218/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 616/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

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

ITA 3132/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

house property and disallowed expenses claimed at Rs. 11,56,714/ property and disallowed expenses claimed at Rs. 11,56,714/ property and disallowed expenses claimed at Rs. 11,56,714/- under section 37 of the Act. section 37 of the Act. During appellate proceedings the appellant has During appellate proceedings the appellant has not made any submission on this

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

house property and disallowed expenses claimed at Rs. 11,56,714/ property and disallowed expenses claimed at Rs. 11,56,714/ property and disallowed expenses claimed at Rs. 11,56,714/- under section 37 of the Act. section 37 of the Act. During appellate proceedings the appellant has During appellate proceedings the appellant has not made any submission on this

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

ITA 2145/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V. Chavda, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 54Section 54F

house property along with addition for cash deposit. In this manner, the Assessing Officer with addition for cash deposit. In this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGHVI DHANRUPJI DEVAJI & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6015/MUM/2025[AAQFS6338H]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Income Tax Central Circle Devaji & Co. 5(3), Mumbai 33, Mumba Devi Road, Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, Dagina Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaqfs6338H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M B Sanghvi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ground I - Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting/Allowing Relief In Respect Of The Addition Of Rs.

Section 250Section 40A(3)(a)Section 68

property. cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. In the case of the assessee, the assessee could not explain the sources for making deposit of cash

SMT. CHANDADEVI K RATHI,THANE vs. ITO WARD 18(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 5547/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Chandadevi K. Rathi, Ito Ward-18(1)(3), B/502, Kailash Mansarovar, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Temba Road, Bhayandar (W), Vs. Earnest House, Thane-401 101. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aczpr 2750 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

House, Thane-401 101. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN No. ACZPR 2750 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue by : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR Date of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 07/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

JT CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), MUMBAI vs. VALLABHBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI SURANI, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

House Property and Other Sources. The Assessee had filed his Original Return of Income for the year under consideration u/s. 139(1) on 31.3.2008 declaring total Income of ₹.31,62,790/-. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted by the DDIT (Inv.), Unit – VII, Mumbai in the case of J.B. Diamond Group on 29.10.2010 including the residence

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 1824/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)

cash flow working is capitalized to project WIP and the balance finance cost is charged to the profit and loss account during the year under consideration. It is therefore submitted that since assessee Company has followed the accounting standard for preparing the annual accounts which is also to be accepted under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore finance cost

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(4), MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJI EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 1349/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)

cash flow working is capitalized to project WIP and the balance finance cost is charged to the profit and loss account during the year under consideration. It is therefore submitted that since assessee Company has followed the accounting standard for preparing the annual accounts which is also to be accepted under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore finance cost

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 1825/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)

cash flow working is capitalized to project WIP and the balance finance cost is charged to the profit and loss account during the year under consideration. It is therefore submitted that since assessee Company has followed the accounting standard for preparing the annual accounts which is also to be accepted under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore finance cost

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THANE., THANE vs. AKSHAYA ASHOK GHOLE, THANE

ITA 3915/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Hindocha

cash deposits and Akshaya Ashok Ghole 5 CO No. 98/MUM/2024 & the sources for acquiring the same house property which is in rces

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 709/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

cash between 4 -5% for long-term capital gain. He also refers to Santoshima Trade link Ltd stating that this is a bogus paper company, which is being used for providing bogus accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries. He is the director in that company and all other directors are dummy directors. He further stated that initially preferential shares

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 710/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

cash between 4 -5% for long-term capital gain. He also refers to Santoshima Trade link Ltd stating that this is a bogus paper company, which is being used for providing bogus accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries. He is the director in that company and all other directors are dummy directors. He further stated that initially preferential shares

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 711/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

cash between 4 -5% for long-term capital gain. He also refers to Santoshima Trade link Ltd stating that this is a bogus paper company, which is being used for providing bogus accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries. He is the director in that company and all other directors are dummy directors. He further stated that initially preferential shares

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 2089/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

cash between 4 -5% for long-term capital gain. He also refers to Santoshima Trade link Ltd stating that this is a bogus paper company, which is being used for providing bogus accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries. He is the director in that company and all other directors are dummy directors. He further stated that initially preferential shares

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 712/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

cash between 4 -5% for long-term capital gain. He also refers to Santoshima Trade link Ltd stating that this is a bogus paper company, which is being used for providing bogus accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries. He is the director in that company and all other directors are dummy directors. He further stated that initially preferential shares