DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\N\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024\N\Na.Y. 2019-20\Na.Y. 2020-21\Na.Y. 2016-17\Na.Y. 2014-15\Na.Y. 2017-18\Na.Y. 2015-16\Na.Y. 2018-19\Na.Y. 2021-22\N\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp.\Nestate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N\N2.

2. The above said workings made by the AO revealed that there was\nnegative peak balance of Rs.46,74,164/- in the financial year relevant\nto AY. 2014-15 and Rs.1,64,20,877/- in the year relevant to AY. 2015-\n16, meaning thereby, there was cash outflow in the above said two\nyears to the extent mentioned above

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\N\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024\N\Nα.Υ. 2019-20\Nα.Υ. 2020-21\Nα.Υ. 2016-17\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nα.Υ. 2017-18\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Nα.Υ. 2018-19\Nα.Υ. 2021-22\N\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra\Nprivate Limited,\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp.\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nappellant\Nvs\Ndcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nestate, Thane(W).\Nrespondent\N\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N\N2.

2. The above said workings made by the AO revealed that there was\nnegative peak balance of Rs.46,74,164/- in the financial year relevant\nto AY. 2014-15 and Rs.1,64,20,877/- in the year relevant to AY. 2015-\n16, meaning thereby, there was cash outflow in the above said two\nyears to the extent mentioned above

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

reassessment proceedings. He is referred to the decision\nof the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Ashok\ncommercial enterprises dated 21 July 2023 and several decisions\nof the coordinate benches and the honourable High Court's\nwherein similar view has been adopted. He submits that the\nlearned assessing officer has issued a notice under section

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2019-20\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2020-21\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2016-17\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2015-16\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2021-22\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp.\Nestate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\Norder\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N2.

2. The above said workings made by the AO revealed that there was\nnegative peak balance of Rs.46,74,164/- in the financial year relevant\nto AY. 2014-15 and Rs.1,64,20,877/- in the year relevant to AY. 2015-\n16, meaning thereby, there was cash outflow in the above said two\nyears to the extent mentioned above

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2019-20\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2020-21\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2016-17\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2015-16\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2021-22\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp.\Nestate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\Norder\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N2.

2. The above said workings made by the AO revealed that there was\nnegative peak balance of Rs.46,74,164/- in the financial year relevant\nto AY. 2014-15 and Rs.1,64,20,877/- in the year relevant to AY. 2015-\n16, meaning thereby, there was cash outflow in the above said two\nyears to the extent mentioned above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

reassessment proceedings on 26/12/2016 assessing\nRs.50,11,16,43,759/- in the hands of the assessee by making\nadditions on account of calculation of capital gains on slum sale\nunder section 50 B of the act, and disallowed claim of additional\ndepreciation on computers of Rs.3,38,66,060/-.\nAggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\N\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2019-20\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2020-21\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2016-17\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2015-16\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2021-22\N\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp. Estate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Nappellant\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nrespondent\N\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\N\Norder\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N\N2.

2. The above said workings made by the AO revealed that there was\nnegative peak balance of Rs.46,74,164/- in the financial year relevant\nto AY. 2014-15 and Rs.1,64,20,877/- in the year relevant to AY. 2015-\n16, meaning thereby, there was cash outflow in the above said two\nyears to the extent mentioned above

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

164(2) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer pointed out that two of the trustees are also directors of the said companies with substantial interest and the companies have e-mail ID as that of the trust and they all function from the same address. In that view of the matter the total amount

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

164(2) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer pointed out that two of the trustees are also directors of the said companies with substantial interest and the companies have e-mail ID as that of the trust and they all function from the same address. In that view of the matter the total amount

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course