PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

section 292C of the Act, contending that such presumption is available only against the person from whose such presumption is available only against the person from whose such presumption is available only against the person from whose possession the documents are found and cannot be mechanically possession the documents are found and cannot be mechanically possession the documents are found

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC -6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 132(4) of the Act stated that cash was received from Mr. Parag Vora. Considering these evidences, the Assessing Officer considered all the purchases made from Krishna Structure Pvt. Ltd as bogus and made disallowance under section 37 of the Act as under

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 132(4) of the Act stated that cash was received from Mr. Parag Vora. Considering these evidences, the Assessing Officer considered all the purchases made from Krishna Structure Pvt. Ltd as bogus and made disallowance under section 37 of the Act as under

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

transfer instruction, in the absence of explanation as to its nature, would, even where not received, admit an inference as to accrual of income, as also of the application of the deeming fiction of section 69A; the assessee being found to be a creditor qua a debt to that extent. That is, the nature of the debt, unexplained, is sufficient

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

transfer instruction, in the absence of explanation as to its nature, would, even where not received, admit an inference as to accrual of income, as also of the application of the deeming fiction of section 69A; the assessee being found to be a creditor qua a debt to that extent. That is, the nature of the debt, unexplained, is sufficient

CASCADE HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93 M/S. Cascade Holdings Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 19Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R.

292C or 132(4A) while completing the assessment and rejecting the Appellant's contention that presumptions raised under section 132(4A) of the Act cannot be used for making routine assessment. 3) On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's contention that the learned AO erred in making

HASSAN ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

price as per the Agreement is CHF 320 lacs, and not CHF 279.99 lacs, as adopted by the A.O., which represents that of the real estate property, including cost of furniture and fixture, cable car, etc. (refer para 10 of the Agreement). The internet search, the results of which form part of the impugned order, itself shows the property being

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

292C. This part of the argument of the appeal stands rejected. 11.4 The evidence no 8 to evidence no 11 as discussed by the AO in the assessment order is based on the documents/diaries seized during the search. These entries recorded in the seized documents have also been accepted by Shri Jiten Pujari as unaccounted cash transactions, therefore the contention

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

292C. This part of the argument of the appeal stands rejected. 11.4 The evidence no 8 to evidence no 11 as discussed by the AO in the assessment order is based on the documents/diaries seized during the search. These entries recorded in the seized documents have also been accepted by Shri Jiten Pujari as unaccounted cash transactions, therefore the contention

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

292C. This part of the argument of the appeal stands rejected. 11.4 The evidence no 8 to evidence no 11 as discussed by the AO in the assessment order is based on the documents/diaries seized during the search. These entries recorded in the seized documents have also been accepted by Shri Jiten Pujari as unaccounted cash transactions, therefore the contention

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

292C. This part of the argument of the appeal stands rejected. 11.4 The evidence no 8 to evidence no 11 as discussed by the AO in the assessment order is based on the documents/diaries seized during the search. These entries recorded in the seized documents have also been accepted by Shri Jiten Pujari as unaccounted cash transactions, therefore the contention

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

292C. This part of the argument of the appeal stands rejected. 11.4 The evidence no 8 to evidence no 11 as discussed by the AO in the assessment order is based on the documents/diaries seized during the search. These entries recorded in the seized documents have also been accepted by Shri Jiten Pujari as unaccounted cash transactions, therefore the contention

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

292C. This part of the argument of the appeal stands rejected. 11.4 The evidence no 8 to evidence no 11 as discussed by the AO in the assessment order is based on the documents/diaries seized during the search. These entries recorded in the seized documents have also been accepted by Shri Jiten Pujari as unaccounted cash transactions, therefore the contention

M/S. ORION TRAVELS PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC 31, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Manoj Kumar Agarwal () Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Cc-31 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan No. Aaaco1591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel

transfer of the commodity or scrips. The question, therefore to be considered is, whether the transactions in futures contracts carried on by the assessee through a broker of the recognized stock exchange which is ultimately settled otherwise by actual delivery, constitutes Page 5 of 19 Assessment Year: 1991-92 transactions or contracts for the purchase and sale of any commodity

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

transfer of money/loan through banking channel was produced/explained. The copy of acknowledgement of return filed by M/s. Sankhala Exports P Ltd. for A.Y. 2007-08 demonstrating that the concerned party is income tax assessee was also filed along with the affidavit sworn by the party confirming advancing loan to the assessee and receipt of the loan amount back along with

VRUSHALI SANJAY SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevrushali Sanjay Shinde V. Dcit, Central Circle-1 282, Boundary Road B-101, Marigold, Prestige Residency G.B. Road, Kavesar, Thane- 400607 Civil Line, Meerut - 250001 Pan: Ajnps5211K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sankalp Malik Department Represented By : Shri Shanti Subramanian

292C of the Act provides that contents of the documents seized during the search or survey operation, shall be presumed to be correct. During the assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings, the appellant has not file any submission or explanation as to why the notings made on these papers are incorrect. Since, the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption

PRAMOD B. AGARWAL(HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6581 & 6582/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08&2008-09)

transferred in the name of the assessee and the assessee had not placed anything on record to suggest that M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. had confirmed the transaction of shares. Apart from above, we further noticed that revenue authorities have also considered the statement of Mukesh Choksi wherein he has admitted that his group concern M/s Alliance Intermediates & Network

RHEEMA HASSAN ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, except for A

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

sections 132(4A) and 292C, which in any case raises a rebuttal presumption, shall not apply. The same was found general in nature, not addressing the specific issues raised or arising in view of the specific documents found and, accordingly, to no avail, so that the addition stood made and confirmed (refer paras 15 and 12-14 of the assessment