ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn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

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.”

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

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

reassessment shall be issued by the AssessingOfficer for the relevant assessment year or years unless (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other. documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

reassessment shall be issued by the AssessingOfficer for the relevant assessment year or years unless (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other. documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

AMIT LALIT KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Amit Lalit Kapoor The Income Tax Officer, B–701, Supreme –19, Ward–16(1)(1), Lokhandwala, 3R D Cross Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apqpk1601N

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s147 of the Act and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the reasons recorded by Ld. AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 read with S. 147. has not been supplied

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

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

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 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

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

DCIT, CC-3(3), MUMBAI vs. MURARILAL R. MITTAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Murarilal Income-Tax, Central Vs. R. Mittal Circle-3(3), Mumbai 1601 Marathon Room No. 1923, Air Heights, Pb Marg, India Building, 19Th Lower Parel (W), Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan No. Ahnpm8021D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021

reassessment proceedings is upheld. 2. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/10/2021. (Shamim Yahya) Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated: 11.10.2021 PS: Rohit Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER

VINAY TODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Vinay Todi V. Dcit – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 Pan: Adapt6426A (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash deposit into Bank when no Bank name is written in the excel sheet, he has no evidence of any bank deposit of the said amount, he doesn't even know that the dates and amount relates to which year and what this excel is and for what purpose. The Assessing Officer (AO) vide his notice u/s 142(1) dated

ASST CIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WORLD TRADE PARK LTD, JAIPUR

Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13)

reassessment proceedings as bad in law and further submitted that the cash deposit of Rs. 2,80,75,000/- includes

SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR V SANGHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Deposit was properly recorded in Cash Book and was emanating from the Accounts explain the source thereof. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,68,764/-under Rule 8D sub-section Z Without appreciating that the Investment made in Mutual funds and shares were

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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