VISHWANATH ACHARAYA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7976/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

unexplained cash-credit u/s 68 of IT Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT (A) erred in conforming the action of the LD AO in adding a sum of Rs. l,419,000/- as cash deposit u/s 68 of IT Act. 6. That the orders

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

Unexplained receipt of gift – ₹3,95,000/- (iii) Deemed rental income from house property – ₹7,73,500/- (iii) Deemed rental income from house property (iii) Deemed rental income from 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

KNIGHT RAJ PROPERTIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

House property income 2 Disallowance of expenses debited to Profit & 21,22,889/- Loss account 3 Disallowance of Management 8,35,000/- Consultancy charges 4 Addition on account of loan u/s.68 5,00,000/- 5 Addition on account of cash deposits 8,08,000/- 2. The Applicant submits that during the course of assessment proceedings the Ld.A.O. after perusing

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property’. The provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act are meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock in trade. We find that decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 281 would not be applicable in the instant case

LATE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA THROUGH L.H SHRI SUSHIL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 20(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 1988-89 Late Shri Mahavir Gupta Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Shri Ward-12(3)(1), बनाम/ Sushil Gupta, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 161-C, Mittal Tower, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aalpg1065E

money was M/s Mangla Brothers. 2. During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Narayan Atal, contended that quantum addition was decided in favour of the assessee as business expenditure vide order dated 31st October, 2014 (ITA No. 4239/Mum/2011), therefore, imposition as well as confirmation of penalty is not justified. 2.1. On the other hand

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue has been rendered as dismissed, in terms\nof our aforesaid observations

unexplained money u/s.69A, the AO added the said amount u/s 69A of the Act.\n10.2 The appellant on the other hand has argued that the assessee had neither sold the\nland at Vapi nor received any advance or consideration during the previous year in\nrespect of the purported negotiations for the transfer or sale of such land. The land\nappeared

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 Page No. | 6 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO go but over

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

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

money. c) The second additi The second addition made by Ld. AO is with respect to the on made by Ld. AO is with respect to the unexplained investment u/s. 69 of IT Act r.w.s. 115BBE. Out of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of IT Act r.w.s. 115BBE. Out of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of IT Act r.w.s. 115BBE

RHEEMA HASSAN ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, except for A

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

unexplained investment in house property, i.e., 39-C, Anand Darshan, 13-Peddar Road, Mumbai- 400 026. The said property, a residential flat, is admittedly purchased by the assessee during the relevant year at a consideration of Rs.142.50 lacs. The source of the investment was explained as by way of a loan for Rs.140 lacs from Faisal Abbas, her brother

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (TROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVA JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

House Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the explanation given for and documents submitted in the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate that Rs. 2,93,51,000 received by the appellant is inheritance money received from

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

House Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the explanation given for and documents submitted in the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate that Rs. 2,93,51,000 received by the appellant is inheritance money received from

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

House Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the explanation given for and documents submitted in the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate that Rs. 2,93,51,000 received by the appellant is inheritance money received from

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

House Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the explanation given for and documents submitted in the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate that Rs. 2,93,51,000 received by the appellant is inheritance money received from

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

House Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the explanation given for and documents submitted in the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate that Rs. 2,93,51,000 received by the appellant is inheritance money received from

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

House Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the explanation given for and documents submitted in the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate that Rs. 2,93,51,000 received by the appellant is inheritance money received from