INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

House, 70 C Nehru Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 099. Maharashtra [PAN: AAACK2912L] ……….. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Dharmesh Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri Biswanath Das Date Conclusion of hearing : 22.08.2024 Pronouncement of order : 04.11.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. This a batch of 3 appeals consisting of cross-appeals for the Assessment Year

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

house property. For the same, the assessee had authorized his father to withdraw cash at periodic intervals from his Bank Account with Central Bank of India A/c No. 1182615215 from February, 2016. Considering the security and other aspects, the assessee felt it prudent to withdraw the amount not at one go but over a period of time. Subsequently, in November

SURENDRA HASTIMAL BEDSA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Surendra Hastimal Income Tax Officer, Bedsa, Nfac, Shop No.3, Ward – 20(3)(4), Hari Niwas, Vs. Nfac, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aebpb5502K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property to the tune of Rs.5,05,814/- with total taxable income at Rs.3,79,940/-. From the information available at AIMS assessee had deposited a cash of Rs.6,77,000/- in his bank account maintained with Dena Bank, Parel and Rs.5,87,500/- in the Bank of Maharashtra during demonetization

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Housing P Ltd.(Chennai) (Trib.) [AY 2009- 10]  Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company Limited (ITA No 1151 of 2013) (Gujarat HC)  Aditya Birla Finance Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income tax -2(1) (83 taxmann.com 85) (Mumbai ITAT) (2017) 1. In the decision of the Delhi ITAT in case of Mohan Exports

SMT LEENA HITESH JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD, 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House Property’. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee rents the property in Lonawala to Tourists and collects the rent in cash for the number of days of stay. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee retains cash for the purpose of medical treatment and the opening cash balance

PARESHKUMAR LAKHMICHAND MUTHREJA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -WARD 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blepareshkumar Lakhmichand Muthreja V. Income Tax Officer 304, Venkatesh Chambers Chs International Taxation – 3(2)(1) Prescot Road, G.T. Marg Room No. 1627, 16Th Floor Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aacpm5882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetization period as compared to returned income". Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. It is relevant to note that assessee is an NRI. In response, assessee submitted the relevant details through e-portal as well as in Tapal. 3. After considering the submissions

MRS. ALKA BHARATKUMAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 25, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Alka Bharatkumar Vs. Ito – 27(1)(1) Shah, Room No. 406, 4Th 202, M-3-C, Shiv Sneh Floor, Tower No. 6, Chs, Pratiksha Nagar, Vashi Railway Station Sion (E),Mumbai- Complex, Vashi, 400022 Mumbai-400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agpps8680P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

house property and income from other sources. The Assessing officer (A.O) find that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 11,60,000/- during the demonetization

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

demonetization period was clearly beyond human probabilities. 8. In rejoinder, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee reiterated that in the written submissions dated, 10/04/2023, the Assessee had explained that the Assessee was engaged in real estate business and was used to maintain high cash-in-hand in order to take advantage of good investment opportunities. It was further submitted

DHIRAJLAL KHATAU THACKER ,MUMBAI vs. ITO. 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 463/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Dhirajlal Khatau Thacker Vs. Ito-27(1)(4) B-301, Mahavir Co-Op. Housing Room No. 409 4Th Floor, Tower 6 Society Limited Derasar Lane, Vashi Railway Ghatkopar Station Commercial East, Mumbai-400 077. Complex, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan : Acbpt5615P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Thakurdesai Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of 25.07.2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization period. Accordingly notice under section 143 (2) of the act was issued on 21/08/2018. 4. It was found that assessee has deposited ₹ 19 lakhs in the bank account maintained with Abhudaya cooperative bank Ltd. Assessee submitted that source of income is from salary, house property

RAVIRAJ MOTILAL RUHWANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3) , KALYAN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

house property, but has not shown income from business. Thus, opening cash in hand of Rs.948532/- as on 1.4.2016 cannot be justified. c. On careful examination of bank statements of Bank of India and HDFC Bank, it is seen that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.2,92,500/- and Rs.8,20,000/- respectively, immediately after demonetization

NANIKRAM FATEHCHAND CHANGLANI,ULHASNAGAR, THANE vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarnanikram Fatehchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Changlani, 403, 4Th Floor, बनाम 2(5), Kalyan, Wayle Nagar, Manila Apartments, O.T. Khadakpada, Kalyan - 421 301, Section, Ulhasnagar - Maharashtra 421005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aiypc1289P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

House Property 1,50,850/- 3 Income from other Sources P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Nanikram Fatehchand Changlani FDR Interest 98,193/- Bank Interest 20,567/- Other Income(Cash Deposits) 9,00,000/- 10,18,760/- Gross Total Income 15,99,191/- Less Deduction Under Chapter

AJAY BABURAM GUPTA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ajay Baburam Gupta Vs. The Income Tax Officer 2, Sunvihar Chs Ltd Ward 34 (1) (1), Mumbai Plot No 153 Room Number 803, Eighth Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Sector 12 Vashi C – 41 & C – 43, G-Block Navi Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, 400703 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 51. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajipg4853E

house property of loss of Rs 2 lakhs as well as income from other sources of Rs. 144,354/- filed his return of income on 30/3/2018 at total income of Rs. nil after claiming deduction of Rs. 115,574. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny and necessary notice under section 143 (2) was issued on 21/9/2018. Subsequently

HIMANSHU VEDPRAKASH CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

demonetization period.” ITA No. 1322/Mum/2024 for AY 2014-15 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed return on 08.11.2015 declaring income of Rs. 30,93,931/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. However, no compliance was made and therefore, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of information available in the return as well

HIMANSHU VEDPRAKASH CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

demonetization period.” ITA No. 1322/Mum/2024 for AY 2014-15 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed return on 08.11.2015 declaring income of Rs. 30,93,931/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. However, no compliance was made and therefore, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of information available in the return as well

AMAN FATEULLA MOGUL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleaman Fateulla Mogul Vs. Ito 23(1)(1) Shop No. 2, Ongc Bldg Matru Mandir No.1, Ongc Bandra Mumbai – 400007. Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapm9284G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neelam Jadhav.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Jayashree Thakur.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

house property, income from business as a partner, income Aman Fateulla Mogul, Mumbai. from capital gains and income from other sources. The asssessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 06.02.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.10,06,790/-.Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notice

NIDHI OMSHARAN MOHNIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT TAX WARD 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property. One very important fact is that assessee has no source of income in India except for some interest income and the entire amount has been kept in her bank account which is an NRE account and source of her deposit was out salary income from USA which has been transferred to her NRE account in India

DHEERAJSINGH OMPRAKASHSINGH MOHNIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT TAX WARD 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Dheerajsingh Income Tax Officer, Omprakashsingh Mohnia, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Room No.1627, 16Th Floor, C/O. Vaish Associates, 106, Peninsula Centre, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Nariman Point, Parel, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Amvpm6622M (Appellant) (Respondent)

house for about 44 months and as such it is not same amount. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the sole question arises for determination in this case is: “As to whether the assessee has been able to prove the nature and source of Rs.90,00,000/- being his savings from the salary drawn

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE WEST vs. KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , ULHASNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3025/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 Ground Floor, Sapna 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near 16Z, Waghle Estate, Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar Thane (W) 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck6745L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3088/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure Ltd 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Ground Floor, Sapna Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane Talkies, Konark Plaza, (W) Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck6745L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

demonetization. 10. It is further noted that, the shops which were ultimately sold to Mr & Mrs. Aswani were located in Market Building Bhiwandi and not the Konark Arcade at Dombiwali. This contemporaneous fact further lends credence to the submission of the Ld. AR that the proposed deal which was found noted on this seized page had been subsequently cancelled