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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

House Property, ii. Addition on account of Bogus Long term capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

House Property, ii. Addition on account of Bogus Long term capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

House Property, ii. Addition on account of Bogus Long term capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

House Property, ii. Addition on account of Bogus Long term capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

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

153D of the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the assessee.” 8.2 In view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

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

153D of the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the the I.T.ACT, 1961. Hence, we reject additional ground taken by the assessee.” 8.2 In view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of view of the aforesaid discussion

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CENTRAL CIRCLE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years\nare dismissed

section 153D of\nthe I.T.ACT, 1961. Непсе, we reject additional ground taken by the\nassessee.\"\n\n8.2 In view of the aforesaid discussion and verification of records\navailable, we are of the opinion that approval was granted by the\nadditional Commissioner of income-tax after due application of\nmind. The objections of the assessee raised in an additional ground\nare

ASHOK VIRAMBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

house. In the case of CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein held that notings loose pieces of papers were vague and could not be relied upon. In the case of CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah

ASHOK VIRAMBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC - 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

house. In the case of CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein held that notings loose pieces of papers were vague and could not be relied upon. In the case of CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah

ASHOK VIRAMBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC - 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

house. In the case of CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein held that notings loose pieces of papers were vague and could not be relied upon. In the case of CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah

PRAKASH GEMS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

house. In the case of CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein held that notings loose pieces of papers were vague and could not be relied upon. In the case of CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah

ALKESH PATEL (PROP. OF M/S UMIYA GEMS),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

house. In the case of CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein held that notings loose pieces of papers were vague and could not be relied upon. In the case of CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah

ABHUBHAI HIRABHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house\nproperty, profit and gain from business etc. Fact of the case as narrated\nin the assessment order reveal that the Assessing Officer of one Shri\nJaikishin Rohra handed over the documents which pertained to/related\nto the assessee, in whose case search action u/s.132 of the Act was\nconducted on 24.02.2014.Loose papers and other documents were\nseized. It was found

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

House, 1st Floor, Kandivali East, Mumbai- Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400101, Maharashtra 400021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABPJ0925G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Naresh Jain & Shri Mahaveer Jain, ARs Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

VIVEK MEHROTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(2) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

property jointly held by the assessee's father and mother. The entry thereof is referred to in the cash book at page no. 129 of the Paper Book. 3 ITA NO.2359 & 2170/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2015-16) Shri Vivek Mehrotra 3. In the course of assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee's father this position was explained by letters dated

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C