CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

330 ITR 298High Court2011#410 most cited

What is CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

218

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. · 330 ITR 298 · Section 68 · source of source · onus of proof · share application money · cash credit · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · unexplained cash credit · addition u/s 68

Also reported as

239 CTR 478

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 132(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceonus of proofcreditworthiness of the creditorshare application moneyshare capital and share premiumretracted statementaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionsection 132(1)section 133(6)unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 267, 268, 269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R PER S.…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 267, 268, 269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R PER S.…

Kirti M Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7750/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7750/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2013-14) Kirti M. Shah, A/703, Sheetal Dham, Sudha Park, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai 400 077. Pan; Aagps-5048-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

…of the lenders and the transaction. The assessee was not required to show source of source. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala, 291 ITR 278(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Investments Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3.1. In respect of ground No.2 of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in making disallowance in respect of interest expenditure. The assessee had received interest @15% on loans and advances and has paid interest on borrowings @ 12% to 15%. The assessee has offered net i…

Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2465/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Rishipal Investments & Ito, Finance (P) Ltd. Ward-15(4), 25/31, Ambros House, Vs New Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Pan-Aabcr5971K Assessee Revenue

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…n the assessee company. We rely upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Del.); CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.); CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.); CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd., 330 ITR 603 (Del.); CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kureli Papers Mills P. Ltd., 380 ITR 571 (Del.). 6.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that there is no adverse material available on record against the asses…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.435/AHD/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V UG-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, s. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQCS 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee by :Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by :Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 21/01/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR…

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Vinodkumar Bajaj & Company HUF, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…warlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh-High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi High Court) 9. CIT vs. Al AnamAgro foods (P.) Ltd (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 375 (High Court) 10. CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del- High Court) 11. CIT vs. Namastey Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 271 (Guj-High Court) 12. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 65 (WIP- High Court) 13. CIT vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (2013) 34 Taxmann.com 177 (Guj-HC) 14. CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom) 15. CIT vs. Samir…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Satkar Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1198/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)

…dentity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and genuineness of transaction. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Dwarkadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298, it was submitted that no disallowance u/s 68 of the Act can be made merely for non-attendance of the subscribers companies when all the evidences have been filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the subscribers to the share capital in all cases are companies ITA No.1198/Del/2017 | incorporated by a due and rigorous process of law as lai…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…position the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon a series of decisions namely Murulidhar Lahorimal vs M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in a large no of judicial pronouncements, it had been held the department…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…position the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon a series of decisions namely Murulidhar Lahorimal vs M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in a large no of judicial pronouncements, it had been held the department…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 278/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jain Dixit, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e r s s to o d p r o v e d o n record, amount of share application money could not be added to income of assessee. According to Tribunal, in such a case amount could be taxed in hands of persons who had invested" CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68— Revenue has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person— Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the 'source of source'— In the instant case, the Tribunal ha…

Income Tax Officer 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Satyamitra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Indore

In the result, the departmental appeal i

ITA 451/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…rightly deleted the addition. Learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: Murlidhar Lahorimal vs CIT, 280 ITR 512 [Gujarat]; People General Hospital Limited, 09 ITJ 481 [Indore]; CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment [P] Ltd, 45 DTR 281 [Delhi] CIT Vs Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 (MP) Ashok Pal Daga Vs CIT, 220 ITR 452 (MP) CIT Vs Barjatiya Children Trust 225 ITR 640 (MP) CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd, 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT V/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd, 333 ITR 100 (2011) (Bom), Sumer Chand Jain Vs CIT, 292 ITR 241 (MP) 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 284/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ng relevant facts, the co- ordinate Bench came to the conclusion that decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. has no application, where the AO has not carried out any inquiries -(2010) 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi)/(201 1) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish P. Ltd. It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “In any matter, the onus of proof is not static one. Though in section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee, yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN numbers or Income-…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ng relevant facts, the co- ordinate Bench came to the conclusion that decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. has no application, where the AO has not carried out any inquiries -(2010) 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi)/(201 1) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish P. Ltd. It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “In any matter, the onus of proof is not static one. Though in section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee, yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN numbers or Income-…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…to prove the source of the source has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ix). CIT Vs. Divine…

M/S Rajdeep Marketing Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7969/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…in the given case, the Assessing Officer and ADIT (Inv.) did empty formalities merely to complete the assessment. Further he relied on the following cases:– i) CIT V/s U K Shah (1973) 90 ITR 396. (Bom. HC) iii) CIT v/s Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 330 ITR 298 (Del.) 23 M/s. Rajdeep Marketing P. Ltd. 11. With regard to lapse of time, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has verified the transaction only after lapse of eight years of the transaction and in that process he relied on S. Hastimal v/s CIT, [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.), H.R. Mehta v/s ACIT, [2016] 387 ITR 561 (Bom). 12. On the other hand,…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ent availability of funds of the creditors. 6.7 Our attention was next drawn to the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT-II v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Del), Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del HC) and CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del) that have uniformly held that the mere fact that the Inspector’s Report alleges the parties to be non-existent at the given address would not give the Revenue a right to invoke section 68 without additional material in support, which as per the Ld. A.R. does not exist in thes…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ent availability of funds of the creditors. 6.7 Our attention was next drawn to the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT-II v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Del), Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del HC) and CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del) that have uniformly held that the mere fact that the Inspector’s Report alleges the parties to be non-existent at the given address would not give the Revenue a right to invoke section 68 without additional material in support, which as per the Ld. A.R. does not exist in thes…

Asst CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Neminath Associates, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8043/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 8034, 8035 & 8043/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst. CIT – Central Circle - 1(3) v. M/s. Neminath Associates 905, 9th Floor B-101, Ramji House Pratistha Bhavan 1st Floor, Kalbadevi Road Old. C.G.O. Building (Annexe) 30, Jambul Wadi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400002 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAHFN7114P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Hema Sharma Department by : Shri Tharian Oommen Date of Hearing : 20.05.2021…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Neminath Associates, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8035/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 8034, 8035 & 8043/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst. CIT – Central Circle - 1(3) v. M/s. Neminath Associates 905, 9th Floor B-101, Ramji House Pratistha Bhavan 1st Floor, Kalbadevi Road Old. C.G.O. Building (Annexe) 30, Jambul Wadi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400002 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAHFN7114P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Hema Sharma Department by : Shri Tharian Oommen Date of Hearing : 20.05.2021…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Neminath Associates, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8034/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 8034, 8035 & 8043/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst. CIT – Central Circle - 1(3) v. M/s. Neminath Associates 905, 9th Floor B-101, Ramji House Pratistha Bhavan 1st Floor, Kalbadevi Road Old. C.G.O. Building (Annexe) 30, Jambul Wadi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400002 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAHFN7114P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Hema Sharma Department by : Shri Tharian Oommen Date of Hearing : 20.05.2021…