9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

197/-.. representing provision for doubtful advances, to the book profits as computed under section 115 JB of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have deleted the additions of Rs.1,11,950/- made to the book profits of your Appellant an account of disallowance under section

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

197/-.. representing provision for doubtful advances, to the book profits as computed under section 115 JB of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have deleted the additions of Rs.1,11,950/- made to the book profits of your Appellant an account of disallowance under section

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

197/-.. representing provision for doubtful advances, to the book profits as computed under section 115 JB of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have deleted the additions of Rs.1,11,950/- made to the book profits of your Appellant an account of disallowance under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI YOGENDRA KANODIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-Cc-5(4), Vs. Mrs.Rashmiyogendra Room No.1924,19Th Kanodia(Legal Heir Of Floor, Air Late Shri Yogendra Indiabuilding, Surajmal Kanodia) Nariman Point, 1 St Floor,Samudra Mumbai-400021. Tarang, Keluskarroad, Northshivajipark,Dadar, Mumbai-400028. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpk4863A Appellant .. Respondent

197 972 2517 158.95 25,51,174 2009-10 1,29,510 1305 2517 92.87 2,49,791 Total 11,74,007 28,00,964 Mrs.Rashmi Yogendra Kanodia (legal heir of Late Shri Yogendra Surajmal Kanodia).Mumbai. 4.3 It is submitted that the mother of the assessee Smt. Chandravatiji Kanodia (presently 95 years of age as on date) had gifted

K.B. J JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

section, in case the assessee has not been able to give satisfactory explanation in respect of certain expenditure or where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, the AO can treat the same as undisclosed income and add to the income of the assessee. The assessee is required to give satisfactory explanation about the "nature

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

197(c) to Finance Act 2016 which empower to tax any undisclosed assets wherever such assets come to the notice of the assessing officer. The said provision, based on various representation, was repealed from the statue and this new section was introduced which can be invoked when income escaped is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and the same

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

197(c) to Finance Act 2016 which empower to tax any undisclosed assets wherever such assets come to the notice of the assessing officer. The said provision, based on various representation, was repealed from the statue and this new section was introduced which can be invoked when income escaped is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and the same

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

197(c) to Finance Act 2016 which empower to tax any undisclosed assets wherever such assets come to the notice of the assessing officer. The said provision, based on various representation, was repealed from the statue and this new section was introduced which can be invoked when income escaped is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and the same

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

197(c) to Finance Act 2016 which empower to tax any undisclosed assets wherever such assets come to the notice of the assessing officer. The said provision, based on various representation, was repealed from the statue and this new section was introduced which can be invoked when income escaped is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and the same

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

197(c) to Finance Act 2016 which empower to tax any undisclosed assets wherever such assets come to the notice of the assessing officer. The said provision, based on various representation, was repealed from the statue and this new section was introduced which can be invoked when income escaped is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and the same

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

197(c) to Finance Act 2016 which empower to tax any undisclosed assets wherever such assets come to the notice of the assessing officer. The said provision, based on various representation, was repealed from the statue and this new section was introduced which can be invoked when income escaped is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and the same

DY CIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LEENA POOWER TECH ENGINEERS P LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI vs. CALVIN PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

68 of the Act, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same by this common order. 8. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment cited by the parties as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

68 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.5,26,26,315/- by\ntreating the sales consideration on account of sale of shares\nof M/s. Krishnadeep Trade & Investment Ltd as alleged\nunexplained cash credit, without considering the facts &\ncircumstances of the case.”\n7. “On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law,\nthe Learned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

68 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.5,26,26,315/- by\ntreating the sales consideration on account of sale of shares of\nM/s. Krishnadeep Trade & Investment Ltd as alleged\nunexplained cash credit, without considering the facts &\ncircumstances of the case.”\n\n5\nITA No.2681/Mum/2025 and others\nShri Shiv Shankar Sharma\n\n7. “On the facts and circumstances

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income