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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

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

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. M/S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Glenmark Income Tax (Ltu)-1, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 29Th Floor, Center-1, Glenmark House, World Trade Center, Hdo Corporate Building, Cuffe Parade, Wing A, Mumbai – 400 005 Vs. B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakla, Opp. Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg2207L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 02 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Revenue’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 22.11.2019 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2009-10 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :-

68,36,540/- (after claiming deduction of Rs.97,06,74,306/- under section 80C) and book profit under section

ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TECH MAHINDRA ( R &D SERVICES) LTD (NOW MERGED WITH TECH MAHINDRA LTD), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C to 80U . Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter. Therefore, the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business

ACIT 7(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NIYANAND INRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6 Th Nityanand Infrastructure Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., Opp Abhudaya Nagar Vs. Rd, Mumbai Post Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacn1981E Co No. 266/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 2255/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10) Nityanand Infrastructure Ltd., Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Abhudaya Nagar Post Vs. Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, M.K. Rd, Mumbai Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Sh. Vachashpati Tripathi, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Sh. Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv Sh. Rahul K. Hakani, ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01-07-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19-07-2019

68 of the Act for making this addition of the sum of ₹ 2,95,10,000/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 5 CO No. 266/Mum/2018 7. The CIT(A) confirmed the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO on reopening under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act but deleted the additions on merits

RAJENDRAKUMAR BHANUPRASAD DAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

68 uses the word “may”, meaning thereby an option is given to the AO not to assess the cash credit also. In these set of facts, we are of the view that the small amount of Rs.46,176/- referred does not call for an addition. Accordingly we set aside the order of learned C I T (A) passed on this

SHRENUJ GEMS & JEWELLERY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Plot No.Gj-09, Seepz++, Marol Industrial Area, Seepz-Sez, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400096 Pan:Aajcs4265M ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

68,812/- in conformity with the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, and which has also been affirmed by the CIT(A). 5. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee made a preliminary argument, which is based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Indo American Jewellery Ltd. 223 Taxman

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit, Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Uni Design Jewellery Pvt. Mumbai Ltd., Plot No.4,5,6, Uni Design Seepz, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu0572G Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri V. Jenardhanan Revenue By Shri Rakesh Mohan Date Of Hearing 20/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

68 taxmann.com 42 in IT (TP) Appeal No. 1289 of 2014, wherein it has ( QJ been observed as under: "IT/ILT: Though TNMM obviates necessity for complete product identity or services identity between tested party and comparables and broad functional similarities would suffice, but where functional profile shows that dissimilarity, even within very same segment, is so significant

MR.LEMES E. D'SOUZA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5802/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10) Mr. Lemes E. D’ Souza, Ito – Ward 21(3)(3), बनाम/ Alk Bricks Factory Room No. 507, 5 Th Floor, V. Company, C-11, Pratyakshakar Behind Sakinaka, Bhavan, Motor Training School, B.K.C. Bandra, Opp. Janseva Decoilers, Mumbai – 400 051. Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadpd7091 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

80C for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2006.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) “cost”, in relation to any long-term specified asset, means the amount invested in such specified asset out of capital gains received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the original asset; [(b) “long