14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd.

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023

…s per requirement of section68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely: (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023 2

…s per requirement of section68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely: (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Humayun Ahmed Shafi Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3433/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Humayun Ahmed Shafi बनधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Ahmed Shaikh Vs. Ground Floor, Rubberwala Building, Nariman Point, House, Dr. A Nair Road, Mumbai-400021. Agripada, Mumbai-400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Auwps7212G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain, Fca Revenue By: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal Cit

…per requirement of section68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under 9 A.Y. 2020-21 Humayun Ahmed Shafi Ahmed Shaikh the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the…

Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai City vs. Ravi Shankar Shendge Legal Heir of Late Smt. Suchita Ravi Shendge, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2011-12

…, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14 In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart the creditor has explai…

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaymala Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

…is placed on the decision of the Hon Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. PCIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ltd., reported in 403 ITR 415 (Bom) Ltd., reported in 403 ITR 415 (Bom) wherein it was held that once the wherein it was held that once the payer had confirmed the transaction of making investment in a company payer had confirmed the transaction of making investment in a company payer had confirmed the transaction of making investment in a company towards share capital and sh…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Starlight System (I) LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, C.Circle-3(4), Vs. Starlight System (I) Roomno1915,19Th Floor, Llp, 5Th Floor Sunteck Air India Bldg, Centre 37-40, Nariman Point, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400021. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Acifs0005M Appellant .. Respondent

…ent of section 68 and it was not required for assessee to explain sources of source i.e. genuineness of receipt of amount by the creditor from his sources. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under: 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, Starlight System (I) LLP, Mumbai. there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction.…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

…the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14 In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart the creditor has explai…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

…the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14 In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart the creditor has explai…

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…The said position has also been reiterated by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its recent decision tilted as Gaurav Triyugi Singh V/s ITO (ITA No.1750 of 207, dated 22/01/2020) which also consider its earlier decision of Pr.CIT V/s Veedhata Towers Pvt. Ltd. (2018 403 ITR 415). More pertinently, the said proviso is not, at all, applicable in case of unsecured loans or deposits, which is the case of the assessee. 5.2 It is settled position of law that to avoid the rigors of Section 68, the assessee must prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders / investors to advance such monies and genuineness of the transac…

DCIT- CC - 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vivek Sunil Mehta, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2101/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -3(1), Mumbai, Room No.1924, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Vivek Sunil Mehta, 1/41, Sukh Shanti Building, 19, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400 026. Pan: Aabpm-1758-Q .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr & Ms. Vranda U Matkari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri N.R.Agarwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/03/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikash Awasthy, Jm:

…the assessee asserted that in the impugned assessment year the assessee was not required to show source of source. To support his argument the ld. Authorized Represenative for the assessee relied on following decisions: (i) PCIT vs. Veedhata Power Pvt. Ltd. 403 ITR 415(Bom) (ii) Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. ITO, 423 ITR 31(Bom) However, the assessee in order to discharge his onus to prove creditworthiness and identity of the lender has gone to the extent of proving source of source. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee 5 vehemently supporting the impugned order prayed for dismissing the appeal of th…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

…) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Orient Trading Co Ltd Vs CIT 49 ITR 723 Bombay HC CIT Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 Bombay HC 21. The Ld. AR submits that the following principles emerge from the various decisions referred above i. The identity of the credit entries can to be established by the assessee by…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

…) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Orient Trading Co Ltd Vs CIT 49 ITR 723 Bombay HC CIT Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 Bombay HC 21. The Ld. AR submits that the following principles emerge from the various decisions referred above i. The identity of the credit entries can to be established by the assessee by…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Keepak Kamboj, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

…addition made by the lower authorities on the ground that the assessee was under no obligation to substantiate the source of source of funds. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court are as follows: “14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…