ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

6,302,742 3 Unproved purchases under section 37 2,87,26,562 4 Disallowance under section 40 (3) 9,98,000 5 Cash deposit under section 68

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion the addition made by the AO on account of receipt of share premium is sustained. The Ground of Appeal No. 2 is dismissed." 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 6. We have heard both the parties

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, rejected books of accounts of the , rejected books of accounts of the assessee and applied gross assessee and applied gross profit at the rate of 22.19% ( profit at the rate of 22.19% (the rate which was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act of INR 7,959,683,862 be deleted. Ground No. 3 - Re-raising of demand which was raised in the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 2 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 68. Therefore, the AO\nis directed to delete the addition. The\nassessee succeeds in this appeal. 11.\nResultantly, this appeal is allowed.\n4.\nIncome\nTax Officer-\n22(3)(6

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that provision of Section 68 applies to all the entries in whomsoever name they may stand found credited in the books of the assessee during the relevant previous year and the amount

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that provision of Section 68 applies to all the entries in whomsoever name they may stand found credited in the books of the assessee during the relevant previous year and the amount

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2),, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

6,25,38,493 made by the AO under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from other clients. because the addition has been confirmed in general terms without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

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

3. Addition under section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit transactions but excluding the remote deposits. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 68 of the Act at Rs 4,21.34,504, estimated at the rate of 0.15 per cent of Rs 2,808.96 crores being the aggregate cash deposits