Lalita Niranjan Mayadeo Vs Jurisdiction Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Lalita Niranjan Mayadeo, filed her income return on 24/09/2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,62,650/-. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act due to information received from ACIT-34(2), Mumbai, indicating that the assessee had made payments on behalf of her husband to Kalpataru Enterprises for a flat purchase. The assessee did not respond to several notices and show cause letters, leading to penalty notices for non-compliance. The assessee eventually filed her response on 24/12/2019. The AO added Rs. 38,46,509/- on account of investment with Kalpataru Enterprises, which the assessee contested before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition except for Rs. 20,00,000/-. The assessee appealed against the order, arguing that the payment was made from the maturity amount of fixed deposits and funds received from Kalpataru Enterprises.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 38,46,509/- made by the AO on account of investment with M/s. Kalpataru Enterprises is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Devangi Vivek Pandya vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Dipa Prakashkumar Velani vs. Assessment Unit through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

  Ahmedabad bench

• Divya Panwar vs DCIT

  Delhi "B" Bench: New Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Mr. Subhash Suryakant Phadkar Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

• Sanam Jignesh Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1)