BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

778 results for “reassessment”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi784Mumbai778Chennai382Ahmedabad333Jaipur275Bangalore211Hyderabad197Pune175Kolkata165Chandigarh127Indore120Amritsar119Rajkot105Visakhapatnam89Nagpur80Raipur79Surat75Cochin71Patna60Agra58Guwahati41Jodhpur30Lucknow28Cuttack22Allahabad17Dehradun6Ranchi6Panaji5Varanasi5Jabalpur5

Key Topics

Section 14795Addition to Income92Section 153C88Section 14874Section 143(3)71Section 6852Section 153A51Reopening of Assessment31Section 13228Section 271(1)(c)

MR. JATIN HARISH SOTTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Ito Ward 26(1)(7), A-16, Ajanta Apartment, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Murar Road, Mulund West, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aqfps 6009 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Chothani, CA
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. 8. As far as addition on merit is concerned, As far as addition on merit is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that cash was deposited

Showing 1–20 of 778 · Page 1 of 39

...
28
Reassessment26
Disallowance17

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3132/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KUNDAN JEWELLERS, MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4493/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

cash 2 M/s. Kundan Jewellers deposits in the bank account. Assessee has also filed additional grounds under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules before us challenging the validity of reopening u/s.147 on the following grounds:- “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in not adjudicating the ground

JT CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), MUMBAI vs. VALLABHBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI SURANI, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

cash deposits mentioned above, have been used to pay off the amount owned by J B Diamonds from VallabhSurani, clearly indicating that the account has been used by VallabhSurani without any legal sanctity. The audited books of Sanika do not reflect the transaction of either credit of the amount of Rs 32.38 crore or paying back of the amount owned

GORESHWAR GRAMIN MULTISTATE CO.OP. CR. SOC,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ACIT, CC- 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA number 2145/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Vaze &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 131Section 147Section 68

cash deposit. The total income was assessed at ₹164,49,95,100/-. The assessment order was passed on 15th April, 2021. 013. The assessee aggrieved with the reassessment

GORESHWAR GRAMIN MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ACIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA number 2145/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 473/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Vaze &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 131Section 147Section 68

cash deposit. The total income was assessed at ₹164,49,95,100/-. The assessment order was passed on 15th April, 2021. 013. The assessee aggrieved with the reassessment

MASTERJI & CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2066/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

deposited cash of Rs.24,47,000/- on various dates in the bank account with Jan Kalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. Statutory notices were issued which remained un-complied at the reassessment

MASTERJI & CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2065/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

deposited cash of Rs.24,47,000/- on various dates in the bank account with Jan Kalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. Statutory notices were issued which remained un-complied at the reassessment

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3755/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv
Section 133ASection 143(1)

cash deposits during the demonetisation period were also observed. demonetisation period were also observed. 2.2 The survey proceedings revealed that the premises of M/s The survey proceedings revealed that the premises of M/s The survey proceedings revealed that the premises of M/s Trikesh Tradelink Private Limited at K Tradelink Private Limited at Kalbadevi were found locked, albadevi were found locked

BHOLARAM MALVIYA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W-16(1)|(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5965/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari (sr. AR)

deposited Rs. 25 Lakhs each on 17.12.2012 & 18.02.2013, (Rs.50 Lakhs) and an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs on 28.12.2012 (total 1 crores). It was also brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that Shri Ram Mohan Chatterjee has given an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs each on 04.01.2013 and on 08.01.2013 (total Rs. one crore) and Rs.75 Lakhs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3107/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3111/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3110/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3109/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

For Appellant: Shri Anant paiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 147Section 250Section 68

cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment

KALIMUDDIN MOHAMAD RAFIQUE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 594/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Priyanshi Desai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

cash deposit under section 68 without\nconsidering the fact that the said addition was made by the Ld. Assessing\nOfficer without rejecting the profit and loss account enshrined in return of\nincome filed in ITR Form No.4 for the year under consideration which was duly\nfurnished during the course of reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 10(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. K M TEXTILES EXPORTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6614/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2024. 4. During the reassessment proceedings

K M TEXTILES EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6750/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2024. 4. During the reassessment proceedings

ARYAN NAZIM JIVANI (LEAGAL HEIR OF NAZIM NOORDIN JIVANI) PROP.JIVANI WINE MART,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3172/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaryan Nazim Jivani (Legal Heir Of Nazim Noordin Jivani), B-8, Ferreira Mansion, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400016 ............... Appellant Pan: Aacpj1522G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 20(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Dr. S.S. Rao Marg, ……………… Respondent Parel, Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

cash deposit of Rs. 60,02,000/- during the year under consideration, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 24.12.2019, and reassessment