DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68 of the unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68 of the unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68

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

section 68 dealing with unexplained cash credit. Section 68 provides inter alia that if any sum is found credited in the books

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

section 68 dealing\nwith unexplained cash credit. Section 68 provides inter alia that if any sum\nis found credited in the books

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

section 68 dealing with unexplained cash credit. Section 68 provides inter alia that if any sum is found credited in the books

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

section 68 dealing\nwith unexplained cash credit. Section 68 provides inter alia that if any sum\nis found credited in the books

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in directing the JAO not to enhance the addition under section

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in directing the JAO not to enhance the addition under section

ASST.CIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NANUBHAI N DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 being differential amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 despite th 31.03.2016 despite the fact that the assessee had not submitted

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NANUBHAI N DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 being differential amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and amount of closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 despite th 31.03.2016 despite the fact that the assessee had not submitted

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

unexplained cash credit. 20. Counsel argued, and rightly, that when there was no cash involved in the Transaction of allotment of shares, provisions of Section 68

M/S.FROHAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained cash credits under section 68. " ''Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share capital) - Assessment year

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the revenue also observed on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the revenue also observed on facts

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68 of the IT Act read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO just made two observation while passing the order: 1. Assessee has neither furnished the details of the parties, name and address 2. Assessee has not carried out any cash sales and the assessee was in possession of unexplained cash credits

ASST. CIT- 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI DINESH HARICHAND SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the as unexplained cash

ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DINESH HARICHAND SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the as unexplained cash

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under