CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT

KHETAN TWIST NET P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

…oresaid, the onus shifts to the Department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. In the instant case, the onus clearly shifted to the AO. There was enough material before the AO in the shape of loan confirmation, ledger account, bank account statement to make further inquiry/verification in the above matter. In the instant case, the AO has not done even elementary/ preliminary inquiry to 12 Khetan Twist Net Pvt. Ltd. verify…

MR.HITENDRA CHUNILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

…ifts to the department is amply clarified by the decision in Shankar Ind v CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v CIT 220 ITR 452; 454; CIT v Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. In the instant case, the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima-facie the loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. The onus shifted to the department. The AO, instead of making enquiry / verification has made the above additions. 6 Shri Hitendra Chunilal shah In view of the above factual scenario and position of law, we delete the addition of Rs.5,60,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SARVAJIT PATEL, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…oresaid, the onus shifts to the Department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. In the instant case, the AO has not done even preliminary inquiry to disprove the contentions of the assessee. The AO has failed to disprove the contention of the assessee that (i) the loan taken from Ahuja Group and repaid are genuine and reflected in its books of accounts and there is no cash receipt…

ACIT 33(2), MUMBAI vs. J.K. INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit/Acit-33(2), Room M/S J.K. Industries F1-Gyan No. 608, 6Th Floor, Bldg. C- Darshan, S.V.P. Road, Kandivali Vs. 12, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai-400067. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. Pan No. Aaafj0696B Appellant Respondent

…or addition u/s 68 of the Act. It has been held so in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. In the instant case, the AO has failed to discharge the onus shifted to him. He has made the addition on surmises. Therefore, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the 1st ground of appeal. 7. The 2nd ground of appeal Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the additi…

ITO 16(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. REALSTONE ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Realstone 16(1)(5), Room No. Vs. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. A- 439, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 601, Crystal Palace, Link Bhavan M.K. Road, Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400064. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 201/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 1271/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Realstone Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. C/O Vs. 16(1)(5), Room No. 439, Ajay Daga& Co. Cas, 401-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan Pearl Arcade, Opp P K M.K. Road, Mumbai- Jewellers, Dawoodbaug 400020. Lane, Off J P Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria & Mr. Sachidanand Debe, Drs Assessee By : Mr. R.C. Jain, Ar Last Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2019

…shifts to the department. It is has been held so in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890 ; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. As mentioned earlier at para 6, the assessee filed before the AO the relevant details and supporting documents with regard to issue of shares at a premium. A perusal of the assessment order clearly indicates that the AO without making any sort of inquiry has rejected the evidence filed by the assessee on…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.JAMINI NIDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

…oresaid, the onus shifts to the Department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. In the instant case, in response to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2016, the AR of the assessee filed a written submission dated 26.12.2016 before the AO stating the following : “With reference to the Report of DDIT (Inv.) Unit 1(2), Kolkata we have been directed by the assessee to inform you that th…

ITO 12(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. CONSULTSHAH FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeed Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S Consultshah 12(1)(4), Room No. 145A, Vs. Financial Services Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., 426, 4Th Floor, Road, Churchgate, Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Mumbai-400020. Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aadcc3362K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, Ars Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

…onus shifts to the department as held in the case of Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. We find that in the instant case, the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid. The onus shifted to the department. The AO has not made required investigation to find out the genuineness of transaction. In the case of Chain House International (P.) Ltd. (supra), during the assessment proceedings the AO had issued noti…

MRS. REENA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

…d, the onus shifts to the department as succinctly held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In the instant case, as found by the AO subsequently, when notices u/s 133(6) were issued by him to the p…

MR.RATNESH CHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

…d, the onus shifts to the department as succinctly held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In the instant case, as found by the AO subsequently, when notices u/s 133(6) were issued by him to the p…

A.J.M. AND COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S A.J.M. & Co. 801, Dy. Cit-15(1)(1), Panchratna Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm0310R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

…. 8 case, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. We find that the AO incomplete disregard to the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings mentioned by him at para 4.3 of the assessment order and without a finding that the party who gave the statement before the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Mumbai named the assessee to…

ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. LOTUS GRIH NIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 8(2)(2), M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Room No. 212/216A, 2Nd Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 419, Laxmi Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate, Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400059. Pan No. Aabcl0864D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

…e onus shifts to the department as held in the decision in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. However, we find that the AO has failed in the instant case to find fault with the submissions made by the assessee. The AO could have made investigations to find out the truth of the case. On the other hand, the AO has resorted to general propositions. To sum up, in the instant case, the AO has failed to draw any adverse conclusion on the basis…