DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, 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

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

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC , THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

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. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,VIRAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

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. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI, VIRAR EAST

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

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. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred

MRS SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

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. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

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. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee\npartly allowed

investment without\nhaving any proof of payment made by the Appellant and even though the same was only\na proposal which was never executed by payments & the CIT[A] erred in dismissing this\nground 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

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result, appeal of the revenue ITA No

investment without\nhaving any proof of payment made by the Appellant and even though the same was only\na proposal which was never executed by payments & the CIT[A] erred in dismissing this\nground 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVINI KARTIK MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

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

unexplained investment of Rs.88,20,000/- u/s.69 of the I.T. u/s.69 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the required details Act without appreciating the fact that the required details Act without appreciating the fact that the required details were not filed before the AO in spite of numerous were not filed before the AO in spite

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

investment without\nhaving any proof of payment made by the Appellant and even though the same was only\na proposal which was never executed by payments & the CIT[A] erred in dismissing this\nground 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

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee\npartly allowed

investment without\nhaving any proof of payment made by the Appellant and even though the same was only\na proposal which was never executed by payments & the CIT[A] erred in dismissing this\nground without appreciating detailed submissions made from time to time.\n6\nITA No.3387/Mum/2023 & Others\nOm Developers group\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result, appeal of the revenue ITA No

investment without\nhaving any proof of payment made by the Appellant and even though the same was only\na proposal which was never executed by payments & the CIT[A] erred in dismissing this\nground without appreciating detailed submissions made from time to time.\n6\nITA No.3387/Mum/2023 & Others\nOm Developers group\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result, appeal of the revenue ITA No

investment without\nhaving any proof of payment made by the Appellant and even though the same was only\na proposal which was never executed by payments & the CIT[A] erred in dismissing this\nground 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