DCIT 29(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRTI RAMJI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3341/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-29(2) बिधम/ Kirti Ramji Kothari Room No.422, 4Th Floor, A/7, Maheh Krupa Devi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C. Dayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra (E), Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400080. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepk3216C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 14.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim That The Profit Of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- From F & O Trading Was To Be Assessed Either As Business Income Or Under Either Of The Heads Of Income A To F Of Section 14 Of The Lt. Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investigation & Analysis Of The A.Y.2015-16 Facts As Borne Out By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Clearly Establish That The Profit Was Bogus & Sham Earned Through Synchronized Trading In Illiquid Stock Option & Accordingly The Same Was Correctly Assessed U/S 68 Of The It Act.

house property. The assessee showed the net profit of Rs.5,75,40,478.00/- from F & O transaction through the Broker M/s. MKB Securities. The transaction was not found genuine the same was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee also claimed the expenditure to the tune of Rs.14,38,512/- which

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

house property (iv) (iv) Unverified Unverified and and non-genuine non genuine expenses expenses – ₹62,505/- (v) (v) (v) Interest Interest Interest on on on refund refund refund not not not offered offered offered – ₹1,461/- (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A – ₹10,000/- Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal 2.3 In appeal

AILA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

69B without giving any finding as to how the said Sections were applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case. 4) Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring decisions of the High Courts led before them. 5) Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the fact that under a Family Settlement, there is no transfer of property. 6) Having

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

Section 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of facts is not there. facts is not there. Hence to form an opinion that

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

Section 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of facts is not there. facts is not there. Hence to form an opinion that

JUGESH SHOBHNATH YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FACELESS PENALTY INDIA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Omkareshwar Chidara

Housing Society Sarvoday Nagar, Jogeshwari, Mumbai-400 060 PAN: ABXPY2016L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vipul Shah / Akshay Shah Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR) Date of hearing : 03/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04/03/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant appeals of the assessee were filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

JUGESH SHOBHNATH YADAV,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Omkareshwar Chidara

Housing Society Sarvoday Nagar, Jogeshwari, Mumbai-400 060 PAN: ABXPY2016L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vipul Shah / Akshay Shah Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR) Date of hearing : 03/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04/03/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant appeals of the assessee were filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

ITO-12(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. GRD STEELINDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito-12(2)(3), M/S Grd Steel Industries Private Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. 203, Tirupati Udyog, I B Patel Road, Mumbai-400020. Off W E Highway Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaccn 8254 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Haresh P. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

Housing Ltd., which was paid on 01/07/2014 to the seller party. As regard to the was paid on 01/07/2014 to the seller party. As regard to the was paid on 01/07/2014 to the seller party. As regard to the remaining amount of remaining amount of ₹89,00,000/- the assessee submitted that the assessee submitted that same was paid

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

69B of the Act. assessee acquired (d) The Assessing Officer also obser The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee acquired entire right in property property against part payment only and and neither paid the balance amount of Rs.13,88,737/ the balance amount of Rs.13,88,737/- for acquisition of the said for acquisition of the said rights

MISHRA GANESHA RAM ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

property. Further, the cash was paid by the assessee in A.Y. 2019 was paid by the assessee in A.Y. 2019-20 and A.Y. 2020 20 and A.Y. 2020-21 amounting to Rs. 30,37,050/ amounting to Rs. 30,37,050/- and Rs. 41,603/ and Rs. 41,603/- respectively. Thereafter, proceedings under section 153C were initiated in proceedings under

ARVIND KHETARAM PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), certain digital material in the form of an Excel sheet was found, allegedly he form of an Excel sheet was found, allegedly he form of an Excel sheet was found, allegedly reflecting cash payments by various purchasers, including the reflecting cash payments by various purchasers, including the reflecting cash payments by various purchasers, including

ARVIND KETARAM PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), certain digital material in the form of an Excel sheet was found, allegedly he form of an Excel sheet was found, allegedly he form of an Excel sheet was found, allegedly reflecting cash payments by various purchasers, including the reflecting cash payments by various purchasers, including the reflecting cash payments by various purchasers, including

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

property. It was further alleged that the said cash payments were ma alleged that the said cash payments were made by the assessee de by the assessee over Assessment Years 2017 over Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019 19 and 2019-20 in the amounts of ₹2,00,000/-, ₹6,58,600/- and and ₹4,05,450/- ₹ respectively.On

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

property. It was further alleged that the said cash payments were ma alleged that the said cash payments were made by the assessee de by the assessee over Assessment Years 2017 over Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019 19 and 2019-20 in the amounts of ₹2,00,000/-, ₹6,58,600/- and and ₹4,05,450/- ₹ respectively.On

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

property. It was further alleged that the said cash payments were ma alleged that the said cash payments were made by the assessee de by the assessee over Assessment Years 2017 over Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019 19 and 2019-20 in the amounts of ₹2,00,000/-, ₹6,58,600/- and and ₹4,05,450/- ₹ respectively.On

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

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

house property, business, capital gains, and other sources. 5. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 23.09.2021 in the case of Rucha Group. The assessee was also covered in the said search action. Subsequently, the case was centralised with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai, by virtue

PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6(1), NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

house property, business, capital gains, and other sources. 5. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 23.09.2021 in the case of Rucha Group. The assessee was also covered in the said search action. Subsequently, the case was centralised with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai, by virtue

SUHASIT STAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-15(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of\nthe Revenue are dismissed

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because\nsuch deemed income is not income from salary house property

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE,THANE vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

housing loan, all of which were transferred through legitimate banking channels. The Assessee had produced the ledger of the said developer, the allotment letters and acknowledgment receipts issued by the developer, and its bank and loan statements which set out the transactions made. Such bank statements also show that no withdrawals of significant sums were made therefrom. Moreover, the agreed