DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 68 was to be deleted-Held, yes [Paras 7, 7.2 and 9] [In favour of assessee). Ground of Appeal 2 On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in concluding that cash sales has increased drastically upto 10 times as compared to the previous year without appreciating the facts

POOJA EQUIRESEARCH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5941/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(2), B-101, Hari Darshan Bhogilal Mumbai Phadia Road, Kandivali (West) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacp 6499 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.Dr

68 of the Act being deemed income which was not recorded in books of accounts. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court "Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT[2001] 247 ITR 290/[2002] 120 Taxman 11 and decision on Hon'ble ITAT Chennai (ITA No 325/Mds./2015 dated 06.04.2016 DCIT Vs M/s Shree Karthik Papers

MEGHJI MANSUKHLAL DODHIA,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

sections": [ "132", "153A", "69D", "68", "271(1)(c)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "292C", "132(4)", "131", "131(1)(d)" ], "issues

UMESH AMBIKAPRASAD MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per\nabove direction

sections": [ "68", "10(1)", "23(4)(b)", "143(3)", "271(C)", "234A", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether the agricultural income

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 11.76/- crores after applying the Gross Profit rate of 6.5% on the sales of Rs. 430.94/- crores. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under the provisions

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 11.76/- crores after applying the Gross Profit rate of 6.5% on the sales of Rs. 430.94/- crores. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under the provisions

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

section 234A, 234B and 234C of IT. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 12. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the delay 74 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the delay was owing to the Corona Virus pandemic. Hence

UMESH A MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per\nabove direction

sections": [ "68", "10(1)", "143(3)", "23(4)(b)", "271(C)", "234A", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "1. Whether the addition

BAO VALUE FUND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68 of the Act were not applicable to the appellant. The appellant prays that such computation of tax liability was without any application of mind and should be deleted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO had erred in levying surcharge 25% on the tax liability computed as per Section 115BBE

NATHAN ANIL RAO, MUMBAI vs. THE ITO -CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

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

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

234B of INR 3,75,54,429; Erroneous levy of interes Erroneous levy of interest under section 234C of the Act 8. erred in levying interest under section 234C of INR 68

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes. 35. Ground no.9 pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings, which is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 36. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. ITAs no.702/Mum./2023 and 703/Mum./2023 Assessee’s Appeal

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes. 35. Ground no.9 pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings, which is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 36. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. ITAs no.702/Mum./2023 and 703/Mum./2023 Assessee’s Appeal

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes. 35. Ground no.9 pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings, which is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 36. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. ITAs no.702/Mum./2023 and 703/Mum./2023 Assessee’s Appeal

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes. 35. Ground no.9 pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings, which is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 36. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. ITAs no.702/Mum./2023 and 703/Mum./2023 Assessee’s Appeal

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

sections 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes. 35. Ground no.9 pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings, which is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 36. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. ITAs no.702/Mum./2023 and 703/Mum./2023 Assessee’s Appeal

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

68 or 69A. He also drew our attention to Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. v. DCIT [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 66 (Bom)], and DCIT v. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University [(2024) 159 taxmann.com 353 (Mum Trib)], both reiterating that such scribbled records, unless validated through substantive\n\n26\nITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others\nThe Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others\ninquiry

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

68 or 69A. He also drew our attention to Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. v. DCIT [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 66 (Bom)], and DCIT v. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University [(2024) 159 taxmann.com 353 (Mum Trib)], both reiterating that such scribbled records, unless validated through substantive The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others inquiry, are mere dumb documents. The AR thus