1 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

…nmade on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law.\n1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC)\n2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC)\n3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC)\n4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC)\n5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All)\n6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will\nhave to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against\nthe assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of\naccount of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumptio…

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

…tion made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will have to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is…

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

…tion made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will have to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is…

ACIT CIR -4(2) (1) , THANE vs. M/S. MUKTI GOLD PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

…iew further gets support from the following judicial precedents:- 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968): 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/S CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. Dhirajlal Girdharilal V/S CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/S DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/S ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)- CIT- IV v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd [2013] 34 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat):- In the instant case, the AO simply made on ad-hoc basis whereas it is well settled law that addition cannot be made on ad-hoc/ estimation basis. On the…

AAKASH FILMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -50, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…tion made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will have to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. COSMOS REALTORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

…sition is strongly supported by the following decisions of the Apex Court: a) CIT V Roman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) b) CIT v Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) c) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) d) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 734)(SC) 5.3,7 In view of the above, I find that there is no justification for presuming that on money of Rs. 5,59,30,0007- was made by the appellant. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. The Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate facts in right perspective while deleting addition made by the AO towards on-money payment for purcha…

RHYTHM REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ion cannot take the shape of the evidence however strong it may be unless and until such presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (Del.) supports our view. Thus, we affirm the stand of the…

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

…cannot take the shape of the evidence however strong it may be unless and until such presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (Del.) supports our view. Thus, we affirm the stand o…