DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI vs. PRAKASH C. KANUGO, MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav (Jm) & Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) Assessment Year: 2009-10

u/s. 132(4), and which find due reflection in the return of income. The only income, of the three incomes under reference, which satisfies this requirement, is the interest income, i.e., presuming that the manner of its derivation stands also specified. The admission u/s.132(4) is to specify the undisclosed income, or at least the manner in which

JAYPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. WARD-28(1)(4), 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 Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Ward 28(1)(4), Flat No. 1, Gr Flr Plot No. 135/A, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Sector-6, Sarsole Nerul, Bandra (East), Navi Mumbai-400706. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Bccps 4784 A Appellant Respondent

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde 3 dated 21.09.2018 ; 01.10.2018 ; 10.10.2018 and 25.10.2018 but ; 01.10.2018 ; 10.10.2018 and 25.10.2018 but ; 01.10.2018 ; 10.10.2018 and 25.10.2018 but same remain unattended same remain unattended. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer hereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act proposing

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied in respect of additions made. 3.6. The present batch of appeals/Cross objections pertains to the following assessment/re-assessment orders and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer: Appeal Assessment Proceeding Particulars Amount No. Year (INR) (Order Dated) (Impugned Order Dated) 5309 1997-1998 Reassessment Addition made - Unexplained Investment: 81,89,072 (21/08/2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied in respect of additions made. 3.6. The present batch of appeals/Cross objections pertains to the following assessment/re-assessment orders and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer: Appeal Assessment Proceeding Particulars Amount No. Year (INR) (Order Dated) (Impugned Order Dated) 5309 1997-1998 Reassessment Addition made - Unexplained Investment: 81,89,072 (21/08/2024

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - CIRCLE 41-1-1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied in respect of additions made. 3.6. The present batch of appeals/Cross objections pertains to the following assessment/re-assessment orders and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer: Appeal Assessment Proceeding Particulars Amount No. Year (INR) (Order Dated) (Impugned Order Dated) 5309 1997-1998 Reassessment Addition made - Unexplained Investment: 81,89,072 (21/08/2024

SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

u/s 132 (4) of the Act on 11-07-2009 and 03-09-2009. However, the A.O. did not accept the contentions of the assessee as in the opinion of the AO the assessee has not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived by the assessee which is also one of the prescribed conditions u/s 271AAA

DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI vs. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

u/s 132 (4) of the Act on 11-07-2009 and 03-09-2009. However, the A.O. did not accept the contentions of the assessee as in the opinion of the AO the assessee has not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived by the assessee which is also one of the prescribed conditions u/s 271AAA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HEM BHATTAD , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately. proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.” 3.1 The Assessing Officer has similarly made disallowance for The Assessing Officer has similarly made disallowance for The Assessing Officer has similarly made disallowance for other items of the expenses. A detailed chart of the addition made of the expenses. A detailed chart

HEM BHATTAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately. proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.” 3.1 The Assessing Officer has similarly made disallowance for The Assessing Officer has similarly made disallowance for The Assessing Officer has similarly made disallowance for other items of the expenses. A detailed chart of the addition made of the expenses. A detailed chart

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied in respect of\nadditions made.\n3.6.\nThe present batch of appeals/Cross objections pertains to the\nfollowing assessment/re-assessment orders and penalty orders\npassed by the Assessing Officer:\n\nAppeal\nNo.\nAssessment\nYear\nProceeding\n(Order Dated)\nParticulars\nAmount\n(INR)\n(Impugned\nOrder\nDated)\n5309\n1997-1998\nReassessment\n(24/03/2015)\nAddition made

DCIT 41.1.1, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, MUMB vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied in respect of\nadditions made.\n3. 6. The present batch of appeals/Cross objections pertains to the\nfollowing assessment/re-assessment orders and penalty orders\npassed by the Assessing Officer:\n\n| Appeal\nNo.\n| Assessment\nYear\n| Particulars\n| Amount\n(INR)\n| Proceeding\n(Order Dated)\n(Impugned\nOrder\nDated

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VERVE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ito 5(3)(1), Verve Industries Pvt. Ltd., 526, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road, Plot No. 16, Office No. 1, Ground Vs. Mumbai-400020. Floor Aman Chamber 2, Mama Permanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aahcv 1577 H Appellant Respondent

u/s 36(1)(iii) 5,65,507/- - the Act the Act 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed certain additional evidences Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

VINOD RATAN PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

46A."]. The said appeal of the Department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench "F", Mumbai, vide appeal order decided in ITA No. 4573/M/2015, dated 20.09.2017. 6.2. As regard the remaining additions, which have been upheld, the appellant had not challenged the above appeal order, against the quantum addition, before the Hon'ble ITAT, which implies that

AXIS IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 14(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4309/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S Axis Impex, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No. 4, Income Tax – Range V. 83-85, Dady Sheth Agiary 1492), Lane, Earnesh House, Mumbai -400002. 3 Rd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagfa2650N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

46A. He further erred in turning a blind eye to facts and documents on record.” 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of household plastic and stainless steel articles. The assessee owned immovable properties consisting of several galas. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that