GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

68 to 104). The transfer of the business to 104). The transfer of the business was made effective made effective from close of business hour on financial year end i.e. business hour on financial year end i.e. 31.03.2012. 31.03.2012. The BTA did not provide for payment not provide for payment of consideration by the assessee to nsideration by the assessee

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

68 to 104). The transfer of the business to 104). The transfer of the business was made effective made effective from close of business hour on financial year end i.e. business hour on financial year end i.e. 31.03.2012. 31.03.2012. The BTA did not provide for payment not provide for payment of consideration by the assessee to nsideration by the assessee

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

68 to 104). The transfer of the business to 104). The transfer of the business was made effective made effective from close of business hour on financial year end i.e. business hour on financial year end i.e. 31.03.2012. 31.03.2012. The BTA did not provide for payment not provide for payment of consideration by the assessee to nsideration by the assessee

ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI vs. PRAKASH C. KANUGO, MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav (Jm) & Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) Assessment Year: 2009-10

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) “undisclosed income” means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry

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 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

c) Bank statement of the Appellant. (d) TDS deducted and paid on Consultancy receipts. (e) Service tax has been paid on Consultancy receipts. (f) Clients have confirmed the transactions before investigation authority. established i.e. (i) identity of the creditor, (ii) credit worthiness of the creditor and (iii) genuineness of the transactions more particularly when nothing was found to be false

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 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

c) Bank statement of the Appellant. (d) TDS deducted and paid on Consultancy receipts. (e) Service tax has been paid on Consultancy receipts. (f) Clients have confirmed the transactions before investigation authority. established i.e. (i) identity of the creditor, (ii) credit worthiness of the creditor and (iii) genuineness of the transactions more particularly when nothing was found to be false

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order of the AO in gross violation of the provisions of natural justice; i. by denying any opportunity to your appellant to present the case on merits, ii. by not giving effect to the order of ITAT on merits of the case, iii. in not giving any opportunity

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order of the AO in gross violation of the provisions of natural justice; i. by denying any opportunity to your appellant to present the case on merits, ii. by not giving effect to the order of ITAT on merits of the case, iii. in not giving any opportunity

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order of the AO in gross violation of the provisions of natural justice; i. by denying any opportunity to your appellant to present the case on merits, ii. by not giving effect to the order of ITAT on merits of the case, iii. in not giving any opportunity

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani u/s 69 2,05,00,000/- Notional interest earned u/s 56 12,05,425/- 2017-18 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani u/s 69 2,05,00,000/- Notional interest earned u/s 56 12,05,425/- 2017-18 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani u/s 69 2,05,00,000/- Notional interest earned u/s 56 12,05,425/- 2017-18 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani u/s 69 2,05,00,000/- Notional interest earned u/s 56 12,05,425/- 2017-18 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani u/s 69 2,05,00,000/- Notional interest earned u/s 56 12,05,425/- 2017-18 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani u/s 69 2,05,00,000/- Notional interest earned u/s 56 12,05,425/- 2017-18 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 – scrip 3,30,86,741/- Greencrest Financial Services Ltd Notional Commission u/s 69C 9,92,602/- AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 AY Reasons of Addition Amount (Rs.) 2016-17 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani u/s 69 2,05,00,000/- Notional interest earned u/s 56 12,05,425/- 2017-18 Cash loan to Nilesh Bharani

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails