ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - CIRCLE 41-1-1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Reassessment Addition made - Unexplained Investment: 81,89,072 (21/08/2024) (24/03/2015) : 81,89,072/- 5311 1997-1998 Penalty Income sought to be evaded

RITESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

reassessment order on 2nd December, 2019, determining the total income of the assessee at income of the assessee at ₹31,43,820/-. In doing so, the Assessing . In doing so, the Assessing Officer made the following additions: Officer made the following additions: (i) Unexplained investment

KISHORE AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

investment in jewelry was made out of on money received by other family members from sale of the property nor any document or paper has been found during the course of the search which could indicate that the on money received was utilised against the purchase of unexplained jewelry. Therefore this claim is in the nature of the afterthought only

APURVA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 8(2) (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CENT. CIR. - 45), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

investment in jewelry was made out of on money received by other family members from sale of the property nor any document or paper has been found during the course of the search which could indicate that the on money received was utilised against the purchase of unexplained jewelry. Therefore this claim is in the nature of the afterthought only

PUSHPA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

investment in jewelry was made out of on money received by other family members from sale of the property nor any document or paper has been found during the course of the search which could indicate that the on money received was utilised against the purchase of unexplained jewelry. Therefore this claim is in the nature of the afterthought only

ASHISH AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

investment in jewelry was made out of on money received by other family members from sale of the property nor any document or paper has been found during the course of the search which could indicate that the on money received was utilised against the purchase of unexplained jewelry. Therefore this claim is in the nature of the afterthought only

SHWETA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

investment in jewelry was made out of on money received by other family members from sale of the property nor any document or paper has been found during the course of the search which could indicate that the on money received was utilised against the purchase of unexplained jewelry. Therefore this claim is in the nature of the afterthought only

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

investment without having any proof of payment made by the Appellant and even though the same was only a proposal which was never executed by payments & the CIT[A] erred in dismissing this ground without appreciating detailed submissions made from time to time.\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred

REKHA LAXMAN MANJIRAMANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD, 19(3)(1), 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 Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rekha Laxman Manjiramani, National Faceless Appeal Centre, 104, Lloyds Estates, G Wing Near Delhi, Income-Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Vs. Vidyalankar College, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400037. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Anhpm 5246 N Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting to observed unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting

BUNIYAD CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Buniyad Chemicals Ltd., Acit-10(1), Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs The Commissioner Of Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Vs. Income-Tax Appeal-21, Mumbai-400055. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcb 6954 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mukesh Choksi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

unexplained investments as the business of the assessee is of providing accommodation entries to assessee is of providing accommodation entries to assessee is of providing accommodation entries to entry seekers on which it is entitled to get only entry seekers on which it is entitled to get only entry seekers on which it is entitled to get only 0.15% Commission

DCIT 41.1.1, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, MUMB vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Reassessment Addition made\n(24/03/2015)\n(21/08/2024)\n| - Unexplained Investment: 81,89,072\n| : 81,89,072/-|\n| 5311\n| 1997-1998\n| Penalty

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained by the assessee himself during the course of search proceeding. The assessee also offered additional income before ITSC on the basis of those investment in fixed deposits for various years covered in the search period. On perusal of the paperbook, we find that assessee has enclosed copy of various annexure of panchnamas of seizure in the paperbook. The paper

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained by the assessee himself during the course of search proceeding. The assessee also offered additional income before ITSC on the basis of those investment in fixed deposits for various years covered in the search period. On perusal of the paperbook, we find that assessee has enclosed copy of various annexure of panchnamas of seizure in the paperbook. The paper

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2),, MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained by the assessee himself during the course of search proceeding. The assessee also offered additional income before ITSC on the basis of those investment in fixed deposits for various years covered in the search period. On perusal of the paperbook, we find that assessee has enclosed copy of various annexure of panchnamas of seizure in the paperbook. The paper

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained by the assessee himself during the course of search proceeding. The assessee also offered additional income before ITSC on the basis of those investment in fixed deposits for various years covered in the search period. On perusal of the paperbook, we find that assessee has enclosed copy of various annexure of panchnamas of seizure in the paperbook. The paper

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), , MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained by the assessee himself during the course of search proceeding. The assessee also offered additional income before ITSC on the basis of those investment in fixed deposits for various years covered in the search period. On perusal of the paperbook, we find that assessee has enclosed copy of various annexure of panchnamas of seizure in the paperbook. The paper

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained by the assessee himself during the course of search proceeding. The assessee also offered additional income before ITSC on the basis of those investment in fixed deposits for various years covered in the search period. On perusal of the paperbook, we find that assessee has enclosed copy of various annexure of panchnamas of seizure in the paperbook. The paper

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI. vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

unexplained by the assessee himself during the course of search proceeding. The assessee also offered additional income before ITSC on the basis of those investment in fixed deposits for various years covered in the search period. On perusal of the paperbook, we find that assessee has enclosed copy of various annexure of panchnamas of seizure in the paperbook. The paper