DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

68\nwhere any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any\nprevious year and he offers no explanation about the nature and source\nthereof or explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the sum so\ncredited \"may\" be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The word\n\"may\" has been deliberately used. A brief

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

68\nwhere any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any\nprevious year and he offers no explanation about the nature and source\nthereof or explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the sum so\ncredited \"may\" be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The word\n\"may\" has been deliberately used. A brief

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

section 68 of the income tax\nact of Rs. 296,146,275/– under section 68 of the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 68 of the income tax act of Rs. 296,146,275/– under section 68 of the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 68 of the income tax act of Rs. 296,146,275/– under section 68 of the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 68 of the income tax act of Rs. 296,146,275/– under section 68 of the income

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

68 of the Income-tax Act, the direction of the learned PCIT is not sustainable. He further referred to para 17 of that order to support his contentions. 17. With respect to the applicability of Explanation 2 to section 263 introduced with effect from 01/06/2015, he referred to the decision of the Hon‘ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

section 68 and treated the entire transaction as penny stock transaction. Further, an amount of Rs.7,50,772/- was added back with the total income U/s 69C as an alleged commission paid to entry and exit providers. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEVRAJ MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

section 68 of the Act deals with cash credits and AO failed to establish how the trade receivables can be cash credits and added u/s. 68 of the Act. Trade receivable are parties to whom sales taken place but payment is due, so if the entire trade receivable is treated as bogus the corresponding sales has been included

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEVRAJ MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

section 68 of the Act deals with cash credits and AO failed to establish how the trade receivables can be cash credits and added u/s. 68 of the Act. Trade receivable are parties to whom sales taken place but payment is due, so if the entire trade receivable is treated as bogus the corresponding sales has been included

INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEVRAJ MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

section 68 of the Act deals with cash credits and AO failed to establish how the trade receivables can be cash credits and added u/s. 68 of the Act. Trade receivable are parties to whom sales taken place but payment is due, so if the entire trade receivable is treated as bogus the corresponding sales has been included

INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEVRAJ MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

section 68 of the Act deals with cash credits and AO failed to establish how the trade receivables can be cash credits and added u/s. 68 of the Act. Trade receivable are parties to whom sales taken place but payment is due, so if the entire trade receivable is treated as bogus the corresponding sales has been included

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

275 show as paid, Purohit but the bearer BhomaramjiGelaji 19,000 cheques were issued in their Hitesh H. Purohit 22,425 names and cash was Rancchhodpurohit 22,425 withdrawan by the appellant. Rohan & 3,83,312 Confirmations Associates were filed at Shankar Shetty 20,700 the stage 153A Sharddha 33,052 proceedings Construction co. confirming that Varshasupeda

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

275 show as paid, Purohit but the bearer BhomaramjiGelaji 19,000 cheques were issued in their Hitesh H. Purohit 22,425 names and cash was Rancchhodpurohit 22,425 withdrawan by the appellant. Rohan & 3,83,312 Confirmations Associates were filed at Shankar Shetty 20,700 the stage 153A Sharddha 33,052 proceedings Construction co. confirming that Varshasupeda

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

275 show as paid, Purohit but the bearer BhomaramjiGelaji 19,000 cheques were issued in their Hitesh H. Purohit 22,425 names and cash was Rancchhodpurohit 22,425 withdrawan by the appellant. Rohan & 3,83,312 Confirmations Associates were filed at Shankar Shetty 20,700 the stage 153A Sharddha 33,052 proceedings Construction co. confirming that Varshasupeda

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

275 show as paid, Purohit but the bearer BhomaramjiGelaji 19,000 cheques were issued in their Hitesh H. Purohit 22,425 names and cash was Rancchhodpurohit 22,425 withdrawan by the appellant. Rohan & 3,83,312 Confirmations Associates were filed at Shankar Shetty 20,700 the stage 153A Sharddha 33,052 proceedings Construction co. confirming that Varshasupeda

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

275 show as paid, Purohit but the bearer BhomaramjiGelaji 19,000 cheques were issued in their Hitesh H. Purohit 22,425 names and cash was Rancchhodpurohit 22,425 withdrawan by the appellant. Rohan & 3,83,312 Confirmations Associates were filed at Shankar Shetty 20,700 the stage 153A Sharddha 33,052 proceedings Construction co. confirming that Varshasupeda

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

275 show as paid, Purohit but the bearer BhomaramjiGelaji 19,000 cheques were issued in their Hitesh H. Purohit 22,425 names and cash was Rancchhodpurohit 22,425 withdrawan by the appellant. Rohan & 3,83,312 Confirmations Associates were filed at Shankar Shetty 20,700 the stage 153A Sharddha 33,052 proceedings Construction co. confirming that Varshasupeda