SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

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

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

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

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

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

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

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

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

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

unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. have been made. During the assessments in some years, assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the com circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made has been made through assessee

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

credit u/s 68 of the Act and of Rs.5,75,037/ the Act and of Rs.5,75,037/- unexplained expenditure u unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of Act has been made by assessing officer merely based on the some Act has been made by assessing officer merely based on the some Act has been made by assessing officer merely based

M/S UNIHEALTH CONSULTANCY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8 (3) (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Unihealth Consultancy Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(3)(1), H-13 & H-14 Everest, 9Th Floor, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Tardeo Road, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcu 1551 C Appellant Respondent

price at Rs.799.90 and Rs.202.19 per share Rs.799.90 and Rs.202.19 per share respectively from two different respectively from two different valuers applying discount applying discounting cash flow (DCF) method. In view of the method. In view of the vast difference in the valuation of the equity and preference share vast difference in the valuation of the equity and preference share

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

unexplained cash credit to be added under deeming provisions of section 68. There was no evidence or any whisper that some unaccounted money had been routed and addition of sale proceeds needs to be deleted. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- SN CITATION OBSERVATION 1. [2015] 54 taxmann.com 108 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

CASH SALES BEING DOUBLY TAXED ASUNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ARE AS UNDER: 1. Delhi High Court - CIT vs Kailash Jewellery House (ITA613/2010) 2. ITAT Delhi - Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya Vs ITO (ITA No.1220/Del/2011) 3. Gujarat High Court - CIT vs Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (TaxAppeal No. 2471 of 2009) 4. ITAT Kolkata - New Pooja Jewelers vs ITO [ITA NO. 1329/Kol/2018] 5. Madhya

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

CASH SALES BEING DOUBLY TAXED ASUNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ARE AS UNDER: 1. Delhi High Court - CIT vs Kailash Jewellery House (ITA613/2010) 2. ITAT Delhi - Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya Vs ITO (ITA No.1220/Del/2011) 3. Gujarat High Court - CIT vs Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (TaxAppeal No. 2471 of 2009) 4. ITAT Kolkata - New Pooja Jewelers vs ITO [ITA NO. 1329/Kol/2018] 5. Madhya

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer as a gift to her son. It was also observed that assessee’s mother has signed in English on this gift deed, however, in all the documents including registration papers of immovable property and letter, she has signed in Bengali. The AO vide order dated 28/03/2014 did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and treated the amount

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer as a gift to her son. It was also observed that assessee’s mother has signed in English on this gift deed, however, in all the documents including registration papers of immovable property and letter, she has signed in Bengali. The AO vide order dated 28/03/2014 did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and treated the amount

ABOTT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shric.N.Prasad, Jm & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am

unexplained unreconciled portion represented personal expenses of employees incurred in the AMEX credit card given by the assessee-company to those employees, which had to be borne only by the employees and not by the assessee-company. Hence, the same were not reimbursed by the assessee to the employees. This reply did not hold water before the ld. DRP. Accordingly

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

transferred to Mr. O.P. Sing for the expenses of the film as per the direction of Mr. Naveen Kumar expenses of the film as per the direction of Mr. Naveen Kumar expenses of the film as per the direction of Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma till September 26, 2012 Sharma till September 26, 2012. As per the terms of agreeme

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

transferred to Mr. O.P. Sing for the expenses of the film as per the direction of Mr. Naveen Kumar expenses of the film as per the direction of Mr. Naveen Kumar expenses of the film as per the direction of Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma till September 26, 2012 Sharma till September 26, 2012. As per the terms of agreeme

SMT HARHSA NITIN THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and an estimated commission expenditure of Rs 5,40,405/- (18013488 *3%) as unexplained u/s 69C of the Act at the rate of 3% of sale proceeds of shares. 38.4. When the appeal was pending before the ld. CIT(A) , SEBI had passed an order

SHRI YOGESH P. THAKKAR,PANVEL vs. THE DCIT , CC-3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and an estimated commission expenditure of Rs 5,40,405/- (18013488 *3%) as unexplained u/s 69C of the Act at the rate of 3% of sale proceeds of shares. 38.4. When the appeal was pending before the ld. CIT(A) , SEBI had passed an order