M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was done. The assessee has also failed to substantiate the other factual aspect that the Ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) has not verified the information for which reopening was made and that the notice was issued by non jurisdictional ITO. We also find no merit in the contention of the assessee that the approval given by Ld. JCIT

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

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reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank accounts only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements

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reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank accounts only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements

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

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and of Rs.5,75,037/ the Act and of Rs.5,75,037/- unexplained expenditure u unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of Act has been made by assessing officer merely based on the some Act has been made by assessing officer merely based on the some Act has been made by assessing officer merely based

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received during the Year. Year. 2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel

CORAL VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11

unexplained cash credit of the appellant. sh credit of the appellant. Ground No. 2 is accordingly dismissed. Ground No. 2 is accordingly dismissed.” 6.3 On perusal of the order of the lower authorities and after On perusal of the order of the lower authorities and after On perusal of the order of the lower authorities and after considering the arguments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SYSTEMATIX HOLDINGS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) after ned cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee and assessment order, considering the submission of the assessee and assessment order considering the submission of the assessee and assessment order deleted the addition as under: deleted the addition as under: M/s Systematix Holding 6 M/s Systematix Holding

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

unexplained cash deposits. 8. Aggrieved, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) deleted the above additions by observing that ₹.32.38 Crores was received from Bhupendra Surani and above said amount is added in hand of Bhupendra Surani. Further Ld. CIT(A) observed in his order that addition on account of cash deposited of ₹.4.38 Crores, Sanika

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. On the basis of the material on record, it is noticed that the assesse simply stated that he is running catering business as third party brokers. In this condition. the assesse should have provided the name, address and telephone numbers of the broker who has supplied the labourers/staff. However, he failed

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. On the basis of the material on record, it is noticed that the assesse simply stated that he is running catering business as third party brokers. In this condition. the assesse should have provided the name, address and telephone numbers of the broker who has supplied the labourers/staff. However, he failed

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

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

credit and added under loans/unexplained credit and added under section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also

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

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

credit and added under loans/unexplained credit and added under section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also

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

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

credit and added under loans/unexplained credit and added under section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also

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

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

credit and added under loans/unexplained credit and added under section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also

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

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

credit and added under loans/unexplained credit and added under section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also

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

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

credit and added under loans/unexplained credit and added under section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also

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

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

credit and added under loans/unexplained credit and added under section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also

SMT. HARSH A NITIN THAKKAR,RAIGAD vs. THE DCIT CENT. CIR -3(4) , MUMBAI

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

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and an estimated commission expenditure of Rs 20,32,598/- (33876636 *6%) as unexplained u/s 69C of the Act at the rate of 6% of sale proceeds of shares. 15.4. When the appeal was pending before the ld. CIT(A) , SEBI had passed an order