PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

80C to 80U. 4 ITA 1838/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2019-20 Priya Kapil Todarwal It is submitted that, the deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.1,93,000./- is thus correctly claimed by the assessee. 3.1 It was also submitted that, as per section 71(2), there is no order prescribed for set off of losses and therefore option is available with assessee

UMESH RAMESH PATIL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Umesh Ramesh Patil, Cit (Appeals), Jai Malhar Builders & Office Of Asstt. Cit Central Developers Kalyan Padgha Vs. Circle 1, Thane-400604. Road, Near Gandhari Bridge Bapgaon, Bhiwandi-421 302. Pan No. Aavpp 4945 L Appellant Respondent

Property - Interest charged for Repayment of Housing Loan u/s 24B and Deduction under section 80C. Umesh Ramesh Patil 2 2. The learned

SANJIV SOSHIL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble\N&\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble\Ni.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N Assessment Year: 2020-21\Nmr. Sanjiv Mehta\Nvs\Nprincipal Commissioner Of\Nworld Crest\Nlodha World Towers\Nw-5701 & E-5703\Nlower Parel\Nmumbai - 400013\N[Pan: Aanpm7571K]\Nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\Nassessee By:\Nrevenue By :\Nincome-Tax – 1, Mumbai\Nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\Nshri Ketan Ved & Ms. Riya Shah, A/Rs\Nshri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit, D/R\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 16/07/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:\N/07/2025\Nआदेश/Order\Nper Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am:\N1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of\Nthe Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai\N[Hereinafter 'The Ld. Pr. Cit'] Dated 10/03/2025 Pertaining To Ay\N2020-21 Framed U/S 263 Of The Act.\N2. The Sum & Substance Of The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The\Nld. Pr. Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Conferred Upon Him By The\Nprovisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Further Erred In Holding That The\Nassessment Order Dated 25/08/2022 Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The\Nact Is Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.\N3. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives\Nincome From Salary & Investments & Filed His Return Of Income On\Nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\Nincome Tax Appellate Tribunal\Nι.Τ.Α. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N2\N10/12/2020 Declaring Total Income At ₹ 23,71,38,203/-. The Return Was\Nselected For Scrutiny Assessment & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were\Nissued & Served Upon The Assessee. After Perusal Of The Return Of\Nincome, Materials Available On Record & Reply Furnished By The\Nassessee On Different Dates In Respect Of The Notices Issued, No Adverse\Ninference Was Drawn & The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was\Naccepted As Such.\N3.

80C\nPF Contribution\nDeduction under section 80G\nDeduction under section 80TTA\nTotal Income\n44,63,091\n(1,50,000)\n(31,150)\n(10,000)\n23,71,38,203\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\n7\nSTATEMENT OF TAX LIABILITY\nParticulars\nIncome liable to tax at slab rates\nShort term capital gains - Equity\nLong term

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

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

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

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 ‘the Act’), was carried

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

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

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

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 ‘the Act’), was carried

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

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

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

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 ‘the Act’), was carried

MOHEMMED ANWAR BY LEGAL HEIR MOHAMMED AAMER,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, 17(2), MUMBAI

house property, income\nfrom business, capital gains and income from other sources. After claiming\ndeduction under section 80C and section

ROHIT BOHARA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 27(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Rohit Bohra, Dcit-Circle27(3), B-3501, Bhagwati Eleganza, Vs Room No. 423, Vrccl, Plot No. 12, Sector 11, Ghansoli, Sector 30, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai – 400709. Vashi – 400703. [Pan No. Ahqpb6511] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramachandran, Ca Revenue By Shri Ujjwal Kumar – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per: Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short, The Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 09/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appeal Of The Appellant Before The Cit (A) May Please Be Restored Back & The Non-Compliance Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Notices Issued By The Cit (A) May Please Be Excused As It Was For The Genuine Reasons. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Time Deposits Amounting To Rs 10,00,000 Under Section 69 Of The Act On The Ground That The Appellant Was Unable To Prove Its Corresponding Source. Rohit Bohra

section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961(‘the Act’). The credit in bank account were in form of fixed deposit which were not from unknown sources, rather it was a part of sale proceed of house property

ANILKUMAR A. TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

house number P 44 in\nGaurav Greens\nbeing a rowhouse and measuring 2017 ft² of carpet area. The issue\nis that when the issue arose in the case of Mr. Pillai about the\nacquisition of the above property, he gave an affidavit that he has\nnot purchased any such property but also gave the balance sheet of\nthe assessee wherein

CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

PANKAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. We have also perused the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A). From the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer it is proved on record that the assessees were directors / partners of 15 companies from

RAKHI ANANT SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

80C in respect of repayment of Housing Loan to Bank of Baroda. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues for A.Y. 2013-14 at hand

RAKHI ANANT SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

80C in respect of repayment of Housing Loan to Bank of Baroda. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues for A.Y. 2013-14 at hand

BHAVIK SHASHIKANT THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 27(1), VASHI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbhavik Shashikant Thakkar Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income G 601 Kukreja Palace Tax, Ward 27(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Opportunity Pok, Maharashtra-400075 Complex, Vashi-400703 Pan: Acypt3095J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv Respondent By : Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13, Date Of Order 28.11.2022. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Acit-27(1), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Date Of Order 24.03.2015 Of The Act.

section 143(3) date of order 24.03.2015 of the Act. 2 Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar 2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with the 939 days delay. The assessee filed the condonation petition with an affidavit duly sworn by assessee himself on dated 10/10/2025. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as below:- 6. I state that, during

ZODIAC JRD MKJ LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

House, Mumbai- 400 004 Maharashtra PAN: AAACZ0459K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Drutika Jain, A.R. & Ms. Priyank Ghia, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23 . 05 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31 . 05 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside

SHRI USHABEN H. GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DYC CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

80C on account of tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539/-. 2.2 The appellant prays that such disallowance of deduction made be allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual having source of income from business income, income from house property and income from other sources. The appellant is also a partner

SHRI SANDEEP S SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

house property, income from business and other sources. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed some loan credit for which the assessee was asked to explain the identity, genuineness of the transactions and capacity of the lender. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO made addition of Rs.3 Crores u/s 68 of the Act which