JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(3)", "131", "10(4A)", "10(2)(xv)", "41", "68", "69", "80C" ], "issues": "Whether the additions

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

sections": [ "Sec. 132", "Sec. 153A", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 41", "Sec. 68", "Sec. 69", "Sec. 10(4A)", "Sec. 80C

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. JYOTI A. KULKARNI, PUNE

sections": [ "Sec. 132", "Sec. 153A", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 10(4A)", "Sec. 68", "Sec. 41", "Sec. 80C" ], "issues": "Whether

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

sections": [ "Sec. 132", "Sec. 153A", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 10(4A)", "Sec. 41", "Sec. 68", "Sec. 69", "Sec. 80C

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

sections": [ "Sec. 132", "Sec. 153A", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 10(4A)", "Sec. 68", "Sec. 69", "Sec. 41", "Sec. 80C

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

section 80C of the Act and found any payment to PPF by the assessee to her account, account of spouse and children, shall be eligible for deduction. There is no mention of minor or major child, hence in absence of any specific restriction we agreed with the argument of the assessee that deposit

SANTUSH PANDURANG MANE ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nc) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, on\naccount of deduction U/s. 80C of Rs.1,50,000/- under chapter VIA of the IT\nAct, 1961.\nd) The appellant craves leave

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer in respect of each unsecured loan party respect of each unsecured loan party is reproduced as under: is reproduced as under: “4.2.1 Bharat Dholariaya (HUF) : Rs. 2,00,000/ Bharat Dholariaya

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer in respect of each unsecured loan party respect of each unsecured loan party is reproduced as under: is reproduced as under: “4.2.1 Bharat Dholariaya (HUF) : Rs. 2,00,000/ Bharat Dholariaya

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer in respect of each unsecured loan party respect of each unsecured loan party is reproduced as under: is reproduced as under: “4.2.1 Bharat Dholariaya (HUF) : Rs. 2,00,000/ Bharat Dholariaya

KISHORE KRISHN PATKI,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIR. 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

68 of the Act but confirmed the addition in view of the provisions under section 69A of the Act. The provisions of section 69A is hereby reproduced as under: “Section 69A:Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and such money, bullion, jewllary

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

80C to 80U. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Energy (supra) is clearly applicable to Assessee’s case also and accordingly the assessee has correctly claimed the deduction under section 80HHE from gross total income. Further, we notice that the co-ordinate bench in Assessee

FAISAL ABDUL MAJEED KAZI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFCIER 24(1)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi Ito-24(1)(1) E-651, B Wing, 6Th Floor Room No. 702 New Chandra Chsl, Veera Desai Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers Andheri West Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Amypk5431D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld Dr Date Of Hearing : 06 /11/2025 Date Of : 24/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

80C of the Act. 2 Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi 3. The said additions were challenged by the Assessee before CIT(A)-31, Mumbai, who vide order dated 25.10.2013 found that the purchase of property was made in Financial Year 2007-08 and therefore in view of the provisions of section 69 of the Act, addition on account of investment

CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191 to 7197/M/2021 ITAs 4977 to 498/Mum/2019& ITA 2498/Mum/2019 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: On the basis of search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act by DDIT(Inv)-Unit

PANKAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191 to 7197/M/2021 ITAs 4977 to 498/Mum/2019& ITA 2498/Mum/2019 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: On the basis of search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act by DDIT(Inv)-Unit

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191 to 7197/M/2021 ITAs 4977 to 498/Mum/2019& ITA 2498/Mum/2019 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: On the basis of search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act by DDIT(Inv)-Unit

PRASHANT J ANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1545/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mr. Prashant J. Andharia The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Ghaswala Of Income Tax 8(2) Vs. Building, Sirm.V.Road, Room No.218, Andheri(East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm8741P

80C and 80D of Rs.1,08,075/-, the assessee has shown net taxable income of Rs.2,12,11,760/-. The assessee has also earned dividend income of Rs.4,71,987/- and Long Term Capital Gain on sale of mutual fund of Rs.12,67,903/- which were claimed as exempt. The Assessing Officer arrived at this conclusion that the loan

MOHEMMED ANWAR BY LEGAL HEIR MOHAMMED AAMER,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, 17(2), MUMBAI

80C and section 80TTA of the Act, the assessee filed\nhis return of income on 24/12/2014 declaring a total income of Rs.\n36,62,870. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation\nissued under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of the\ninformation received from the DDIT(Investigation), Unit