CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…1 ITA Nos.756 & 4763/Mum/2016 Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी रवीशसूद, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.756/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4763/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT-9(2)(1) M/s Brima Sagar Maharashtra 665A, 6th Floor Distilleries Ltd. बनाम/ 7th Floor, Vaman T…

DCIT- 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Opera Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri C.N. Prasad (JM) I.T.A. No. 5606/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. M/s. Opera Infra DCIT-10(3)(1) Room No. 212 Projects Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan 602, Vardhaman M.K. Road Apartment, 60 Mumbai-400 020. Hanuman Road Vile Parle East Mumbai-400 057. PAN : AACCP1304P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.B. Popat Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 15.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 22.06.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) date…

M/S Swargamrut Dairy Prv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 11(2)(2) 113, 1St Chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 Pan: Aalcs3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department By : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021

…nds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case 11 M/s. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) and the order of the Apex Court in case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195. 4. We have considered the submissions. 5. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money ha…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Bell Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…he A.O. to show as to how the explanation furnished by appellant is not satisfactory in his opinion. In this regard, the appellant has also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, 394 ITR 680, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder :- "Proviso to section 68 introduced by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1-4-2013, would not have retrospective effect. Where assessee-company had established identity, genuineness and capacity of shareholders who had subscribed to its shares, Assessing Officer was not justified in adding am…

Asst. CIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Everglades Minerals & Reserves Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

…the net assets of the two individual remained unchanged.” 14. He also referred to the decision of honourable Delhi High Court in that case. He further referred to the decision of honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (80 Taxmann.com 272) in that case the question of law before Hon'ble court in this case was as under :- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and In law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7,53,50,000/- u/s.68 of the Act being share capital/share premium received during the year when the AO held the same as une…

M/S Hinal Estate Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 10, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.7938 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Hinal Estate Private Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of A-1 Hinal Estate, Patel Wadi, Vs. Income Tax-10, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, S.V. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 057 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan No. Aabch6287J (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri. Naresh Jain, A.R Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2021

…hereafter had been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Stellar Investments Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT-1, Vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). In fact, in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. ltd, (supra) it was held by the Hon‟ble High Court that the „first proviso‟ to Sec. 68 of the Act that was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 1st April, 2013 would be effective only from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. Also, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lov…

M/S Kundali Jewel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3511/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer 12 Pvt. Ltd. (3)(1) Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (E), Mumbai. Marg, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4337/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer 12 बिधम/ M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) (3)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Thakur Village, Kandivali Marg, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Pnek10340B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm) The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.3511/Mum/2019 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…is expected to prove source-of-source as well. Firstly, in the case in hand, the amounts received were in the F.Y. i.e. A.Y.2012-13 and further this proviso would apply only from AN. 2013-14. {Ref: decision of the Bombay High Court in Gangadeep Infrastructure 394 ITR 680 (Born.)). The Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the said position in PCIT V/s. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. ITXA/819 of 2015 dated 17th April 2018. However, the said proviso was inserted because, sec.68 (unamended) was incapable of obliging the assessee to prove the source- of-source and hence the proviso was required to inserted. It follo…

Income Tax Officer 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vishwakarma Structure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…,000/- as the same was made on the basis of suspicion and surmises. He finally relied on various decisions referred to in the appellate order such as Green Infra Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, [2013] 145 ITD 240 (Bombay), CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bombay) and CIT vs Daulat Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee by holding that assessee has provided all the evidences to the Assessing Officer and thus discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the investors, however, the Assessing Officer has f…

ACIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citygold Farming P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 9(2)(2) Citygold Farming P. Ltd., बनाम/ Room No. 665A, 6Th Floor 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Centre, Road No. 7, Marol, Mumbai. Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca8865R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…view of these facts and circumstances, once the AO has not rebutted the evidences, the AO cannot disbelieve the same. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom), wherein Hon’ble High Court had held as under : - (e) We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates…

Shakti Share Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-13(2)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.4100 & 4101/M/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Shakti Share The Income-Tax Officer, Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(2)(3), B-302, Rangoli Vasant Aayakar Bhavan, Utsav, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Thakur Village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 PAN: AAACS 9220 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.R. Revenue by : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 O R D E R Per Raj…

M/S. J.R. Properties, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

…edited and such explanation is found to be satisfactory. However, this proviso is applicable only from AY 2013-14 and the same is not retrospective in nature as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272]. 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…

M/S.Moraj Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 708/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 709/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) M/s. Moraj Realty Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, CC-5(2) Vs. Shop No. 28/29, Moraj Room No. 1908 Residency, Plot No. 1 19th Floor Sector 16, Sanpada Air India Building Navi Mumbai-400 706. Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AAACC3394A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pradeep Kapasi Department by Shri Vijaykumar Subramaniyan Date of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 08.12.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM…

M/S.Abhijavala Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

…edited and such explanation is found to be satisfactory. However, this proviso is applicable only from AY 2013-14 and the same is not retrospective in nature as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272]. 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…