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

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

section 234C of INR 68,972; 8. erred in levying interest under section 234C of INR 68,972; Erroneous

SANKPAL DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Sankpal Developers Income Tax Officer, 101-104, Haripriya Apartment, Ward-25(1)(1) Sundervan Complex, 203, Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Cross Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Andheri (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwfs4025Q Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

68 of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. iv. The NFAC further failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. has made the addition relying on the statements of certain parties obtained during the search and seizure action carried out under section 132 of the Act on the said parties, without providing the appellant an opportunity

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

MATHURA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 instead of deleting the whole amount of Rs.38.70 Crores as he considered the unsigned loose sheets are dumb documents. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s. 23413, 234C & 234D of the Income tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the additions made may please be deleted or in the alternative

NITIN NAGARJI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68 of the Act may be deleted. ITA Nos.4819 to 4821 & 359/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-13, 14-15 & 17-18 4 Nitin Nagarji Mehta v. ITO 5. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C

NITIN NAGARJI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3)(5) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68 of the Act may be deleted. ITA Nos.4819 to 4821 & 359/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-13, 14-15 & 17-18 4 Nitin Nagarji Mehta v. ITO 5. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C

NITIN NAGARJI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68 of the Act may be deleted. ITA Nos.4819 to 4821 & 359/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-13, 14-15 & 17-18 4 Nitin Nagarji Mehta v. ITO 5. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve