RAMESH H GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Ramesh H Gada, The Ito 25(3) (3) C-10, Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, 9/A Narshina Prasad Building, Malviya Road, Opp Gala Eye Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Hospital, Ville Parle (East), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400057 Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aabpg2968C (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1) (c) vide notice dated 10.12.2011. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition 3 ITA No. 1100/Mum/2017- Shri Ramesh H Gada under section 69B was deleted. However, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 2,08,000/- and addition of Rs.2,97,054/- on account of Income from House Property was confirmed. Thereafter, the AO again issued show

SANJEEV CHANDRAKANT DEO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri M. Balaganesh ()

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, both the appeals are for the assessment year 2010-11. 2 ITAs 2280 & 2281/Mum/2019 2. In ground 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as the assessment order passed under the said provision

AVINASH NARAYAN SUTAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act to be initiated simultaneously for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income. Similarly the AO on perusal of profit & loss account found that the asssessee has claimed expenditure incurred for developing of open plots. Since, the asssessee has not provided specific explanations on the expenses

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. COSMOS REALTORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

section 69B of the I T Act this excess amount of Rs. 5,59,30,0007- is deemed to be the income of the assessee for the F Y 2005-06 relevant to A Y 2006-07 and added back. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly confirmed the additions in respective years. 5. Being aggrieved by the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. Lengthy arguments were advanced before the Tribunal on the legal issue regarding the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act without

DCIT CC 2(4), MUMBAI vs. CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing in accurate particulars of income thereby leading to concealment of income.” 15. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) held that provisions of section 56(2) are not applicable for the current assessment year. He further held that transaction is capital and hence it is outside the scope

JCIT (OSD) 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SANJAY PARMAR, MUMBAI

In the result revenues appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhjcit(Osd)-8(1)(1), M/S Sanjay V. Parmar, Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, 3,2 Ooranwala Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. B.A. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400012. Vs Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.61/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2014-15) M/S Sanjay V. Parmar, Jcit(Osd)-8(1)(1), Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, 3,2 Ooranwala Mansion, Dr. B.A. Road, Parel, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400020. Vs Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent : Shri T.S. Khalsa (Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2021 Order

Section 69B of the Act, the burden of proof is on assessee, however assessee fails to discharge his onus to provide the source of cash payment made towards booking/purchase of the flat. As assessee fails to substantiate the source of the cash payment of Rs.5.50/- crores towards booking/ purchase of flat at “One Avigna Park” developed by M/s Nish developers

ITO - 13(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MANOJKUMAR BERIWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 553 & 5815/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Ito-13(2)(4), Shri Manojkumar Beriwal Room No. 412, 4Th Floor, C/O. M/S. Sajan Steels, बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 406-B, Bharat Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 52C, Baroda St., Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Abrpb 4589 M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Suman Kumar प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Tulsiyan सुनवाई की तारीख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.10.2013 & 10.06.2014 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai. Vide Ita No. 553/Mum/2014, The Revenue Has Challenged The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Appellant-Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter). Vide The Second Appeal, The Revenue Has Challenged The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Passed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Deleted The Penalty Levied By The Ao. Both The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Hence, The 2

271(1)(c) of the Act and deleted the penalty levied by the AO. Both the appeals pertain to the same assessee, hence, the 2 ITA Nos. 553 & 5815/M/14 (A.Y.1999-2000) ITO vs. Shri ManojKumar Beriwal same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 4. Brief facts of the case

JITESH JITENDRA SAKHIDAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30 (1) (5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

69B of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income.” 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued various notices from June 2023 to August 2023. However, the assessee did not make any personal appearance nor filed any additional

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond