SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing the Act. Penalty

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act to income computed under normal provisions of the Act. Further, even after additions, the tax payable under normal provisions of the Act is less than, the tax payable under the provisions of section 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty has not been levied therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being being premature at this stage, the grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the we take

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty has not been levied therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being being premature at this stage, the grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the we take

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty has not been levied therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being being premature at this stage, the grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the we take

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty has not been levied therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being being premature at this stage, the grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the we take

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty has not been levied therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being being premature at this stage, the grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the we take

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty has not been levied therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being being premature at this stage, the grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the we take

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty has not been levied therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being being premature at this stage, the grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. grounds raised is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the we take

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the section 68 of the Act. 13.1 The relevant part of the order of the The relevant part of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer related to ground no. 4 related to ground no. 4 is reproduced as under: “12. The assessee has claimed following loans taken during they under

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the section 68 of the Act. 13.1 The relevant part of the order of the The relevant part of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer related to ground no. 4 related to ground no. 4 is reproduced as under: “12. The assessee has claimed following loans taken during they under

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

cash credits as income from other sources as the same could not be proved, with a prayer that no penalty might be levied. Thus, the admission, if any, was a conditional admission and could not be relied upon for imposing penalty as an unconditional admission. " Hence, relying on the above case laws your goodself would appreciate that as the assessee

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

unexplained cash credit. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

unexplained cash credit. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders

MUNIR M. KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC -7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathamunir Khan Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Raj Classic Bldg Aaykar Bhawan Off. Yari Road, Versova M.K.Road Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Vs. Munir Khan 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Aaykar Bhawan Raj Classic Bldg M.K.Road Off. Yari Road, Versova Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of Rs. 4,43,49,1 49/- to Rs.58,46,280/- stating that the concealed income as per assessment order was reduced by ITAT from Rs. 13,04,77,050^ to Rs. l,72,20,000/- without appreciating that the Department has filed appeal u/s 260 A before the Hon’ble High Court with respect

RAJARAM STOCK BROKING CO. (MUMBAI),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negirajaram Stock Broking Co. Vs. Ito,Ward-4(2)(1) (Mumbai) Private Limited Aaykar Bhawan 919, P.J.Tower M.K.Road Dalal Street, Fort Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aabcr1110Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty shall not be levied for concealment of particulars of income. Thereafter, the order imposing penalty was passed on 30/09/2014 levying penalty @ 100% tax sought to be evaded, in respect of additions made towards unexplained cash credit

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CENT.CIR-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

unexplained cash credits and charged to tax u/s 68 as the income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2014-2015. Alternatively, this amount is also chargeable to tax as the undisclosed income or income from undisclosed sources of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2014-2015. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

unexplained cash credits and charged to tax u/s 68 as the income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2014-2015. Alternatively, this amount is also chargeable to tax as the undisclosed income or income from undisclosed sources of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2014-2015. Penalty proceedings u/s 271