CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ab & Co Global P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-4(1)(2), Room No. 640, M/S Ab & Co. Global 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 30, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Gopal Bhuvan, 199, Princess Street, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aaeca1095J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Satish Chandra Rajore, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Ar Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT-4(1)(2), Room No. 640, M/s AB & Co. Global 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 30, 2nd floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Gopal Bhuvan, 199, Princess Street, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002. PAN No. AAECA1095J Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Satish Chandra Rajore, DR Assessee by : Mr. Jitendra Singh, AR Date of Hearing : 09/01/2019 Date of pronouncement : 30/01/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Reven…

ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Greeksoft Institute of Financial Market Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

…and genuineness of transactions. The Ld CIT(A) also took support of the following decisions to support his order:- (a) Oasis Hospitalities P Ltd (2011)(333 ITR 119)(Delhi) (b) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (ITA No.2182 of 2009 dated October 12, 2009 – 333 ITR 100) (c) CIT vs. P Mohanakala (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (1991)(192 ITR 287)(Delhi) (e) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P Ltd (2014)(361 ITR 10)(Delhi) Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.370 lakhs made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. 10. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A). 11. T…

Karsandas Lalkhman Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. Karsandas Lakhman Acit, Circle 18(2) Jhaveri Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor 219, Shaikh Memon Street Vs. Earnest House, Zaveri Bazar Narimanpoint Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaafk3837B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi & Shri Khatiwala Respondent By: Shri Sachchidanand Dube Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-29, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2016 & It Relates To A.Y. 2012-13. 1. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Carrying On The Business Of Dealers & Exporters In Precious Metals, Diamonds, Stones, Gold & Silver Jewellery. Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed On 27.09.2012 Declaring Total Income At `1,48,23,960/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Found That Advances Received From One Shri Quasim Mohd Yousuf A Bastak & Smt. Samira Abbas Was Shown In The Books. Assessee Had Shown An Advance Of `1.50 Crores From Shri Quasim Mohd Yousuf A Bastak & `75 Lakhs From Smt. Samira Abbas. It Was Explained

…rein it was held that it was for the revenue to proceed by reopening assessment of such paersons and assessing them to tax who had paid advances and not to add same to assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit. CIT vrs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom), wherein it was held that when the assessee had given the details of name, PAN No. And also given the cheque nos, name of bank statements then it was expected on the part of AO to make proper investigations and not to make additions in the case of assesses.. On same principles, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Orissa Corp P…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kukreja Developers & Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7280/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Kukreja Developers & Income Tax-14(2)(1) Builders Private Limited Room No.455 (Formerly Known As Gopi Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Ltd.) Aaykar Bhavan, 4Th Floor Vs. ‘Laalasis’, Plot No.219 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 11Th Road, Chembur Mumbai-400 071 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-1231-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ident from the AO’s order that the appellant himself has furnished the address, PAN No., ledger confirmation, bank statement and the credit was also obtained in cheque. In such a situation Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. 333 ITR 100 (Bom) held as under: “Cash Credit-Share Application Money-Relevant Material Details and Particulars of share applicants available on record – Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach shareholder- addition cannot be made in assessee’s hands- Income-tax Act, 1961. ITA.No.7280/Mum/2014 Kukreja Developers & Builders Private Limited As…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. Nos.1448, 1449 & 1467/Mum/2017 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dy. CIT-CC-7(2), M/s. Manba Finance Ltd. Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, 324, Runwal Height, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 4681 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Respondent by : Dr. P. Daniel Date of Hearing : 06.08.2018 : 05.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the Revenu…

ITO WD 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Mineral Resources P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. B. R. Baskaran, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3709/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. B. R. BASKARAN, AM & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3709/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rajendra Mineral ITO WD-5 (3) (1), Resources Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 45/10 2nd floor, बिधम/ 526,AayakarBhavan, M. RajkotwalaBldg, 1st K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAECR5737J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3817/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rajendra Mineral ITO WD-5 (3) (1), Resources Pvt. Ltd…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

…Investment Ltd [2001] 251 ITR 263 (SC), CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Del-HC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Del-HC), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 100 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Green Infra Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 680 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd. [2017] 400 ITR 439 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Apeak Info Tech Nagpur & Ors [2017] 397 148 (Bom- HC), CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Haresh D.…

ITO 7(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Lisha Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13 Ito 7(1)(4), Lisha Trading P. Ltd., Mumbai Ground Floor, Rajguru Apartment, Vs. Baburao Parulekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028

…t canno t be termed as "bogus". The controversy is covered by the judgements rendered b y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd, vs. CIT, (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd, (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom). In such circumstances, we are of theview that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Born-High Court) "The ques…

ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Ggf Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6006/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 12(2)(3), Room No. बिधम/ M/S. Ggf Industries Pvt. 226, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Ltd. A-303, Bhattad Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Opp. Kora Kendra Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Ground, Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg3856E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…ere have to be some cogent reasons and materials for the Assessing Officer and he cannot go into the realm of suspicion” The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (In L T. A. No. 2182 of 2009 decided on October 12, 2009) [2011] 333 ITR 100 has held that: - The relevant portion of this order is reproduced below "In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PA/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. II was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigati…

ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Mediavest India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

…Corporation Ltd. material and evidence on record, the share application money received from the three concerns stood adequately explained and, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., 333 ITR 100 (Bom.), the impugned addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 68 of the Act provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offer…