CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazon Metals 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 G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

…oans from above 2 companies as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee, the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee in the light of the facts of the present case and find that the Hon'ble High Court categorically observed that the Proviso to section 68 has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 wef 01-04- 2013 is applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards. The Court further observed that the Parliam…

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

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

…oans from above 2 companies as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee, the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee in the light of the facts of the present case and find that the Hon'ble High Court categorically observed that the Proviso to section 68 has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 wef 01-04- 2013 is applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards. The Court further observed that the Parliam…

DCIT Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Acro Exports Trade 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 G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

…oans from above 2 companies as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee, the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee in the light of the facts of the present case and find that the Hon'ble High Court categorically observed that the Proviso to section 68 has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 wef 01-04- 2013 is applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards. The Court further observed that the Parliam…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Adhunik Trnasport Organisation Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3725/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Dcit-12(1)(1) M/S. Adhunik Transport Organisation Ltd. Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ 115, Udyog Bhavan Sonawat Road, Goregaon (E) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-4457-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. R. Kavitha-Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri D.V. Lakhani-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…dited 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]. 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 transactions. Once these three ingredients are fulfilled by the assessee, the primary onus casted upon him, in this regard, could be said…

ITO 4(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Agarwal Cloth Agency P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiito-4(1)(3) Vs. M/S Agarwal Cloth Agency Room No.637A, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan 122, Zaveri Bazar Trishala Building,5Th Floor M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Kharakua Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aaeca6963D Appellant) .. Respondent)

…eged bogus shareholders, whose name are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee . The Hon’ble Bombay High (2017) 394 ITR 680, had considered an identical issue and held that proviso to section 68 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013 is applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards, as per which before insertion of provision to 68 of the Act, the assesee need not to prove source of source of an investment. Once, he proved credit worthiness of the parti…

Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Amrise Infra-Creators Private Limited(Formerly Known As M/S.Tirtha Industries Private Limited), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…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]. 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 transactions. Once these three ingredients are fulfilled by the assessee, the primary onus casted upon him, in this regard, could be said…

Dct - CC- 5(2), Mumbai vs. Kaygee Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result,both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…M/s Apsara TrexPvt. Ltd. In any case, the proviso inserted to section 68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 is considered to be prospective in nature as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Limited (2017) 394 ITR 680 where the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that proviso inserted to section 68 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 is considered to be prospective in nature and applicable from assessment year 2013-14 onwards. The ld. CIT(A) after considering all these aspects has rightly deleted the additions made by the AO towards share capital received by M/s Apsara TrexPvt.…

Sunil Hitech Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…refore, the primary ingredients of Section 68 were duly fulfilled by the assessee. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements to support the afore-said submissions: - No. Case Laws Authority Citation 1. CIT Vs. Gagandeep Hon’ble Bombay High 394 ITR 680 Infrastructure P. Ltd. Court 2. CIT Vs. Orchid Industries P. Hon’ble Bombay High ITA 1433 of 2014 dated Ltd. Court 05/07/2017 3. Acquatic Remedies Pvt Ltd. ITAT, Mumbai ITA Nos. 6356-57/M/2014 dated Vs DCIT 17/04/2015 (Revenue’s appeal dismissed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court) 4. ITO Vs Superline ITAT, Mumbai ITA No. 3645/Mum/2014 dated Constructio…

ITO 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Destimoney India Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1706/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-9(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Destimoney India 419, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 5 Sahjeevan Chs, N.M. Joshi Marg, Next To Yamaha Showroom, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd1326K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vinay Deshman/Pawan Sharma सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.12.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…Assessee have been distinguished by the Tribunal while rendering the aforesaid decision. We seek to specifically address how the Tribunal dealt with the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680. The Hon’ble Tribunal has held that in the case of Gagandeep (supra) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court considered the factual matrix of the case wherein it was observed that the taxpayer satisfied the three ingredients of Section 68 of the Act which stood proved namely identity and creditworthiness of shareholders and genuineness of the transaction a…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Atco Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), M/S Atco Ltd., R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aadcg7438C (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 218/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 49/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Atco Ltd., The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400031 Vs. Mumbai - 20 Pan: Aadcg7438C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…aforesaid submissions, the Ld. CIT (A) contended that there is no merit in the revenue’s appeal. The Ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Green Infra Ltd. 392 ITR 7 (Bom), CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure 394 ITR 680 (Bom), the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s V.R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO tax case (Appeal) No. 246 of 2017, decision of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of M/s Cornestone Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No. 665/Bang/2017 to substantiate the claim of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone t…

Income Tax Officer-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Mamta Glod Private Limited (Earlier Known As Praveen Jewelers Private Limited ), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…l necessary details. Learned CIT(A) also referred to several case laws including Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(394 ITR 680) another decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd (ITXA 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017). Learned CIT(A) concluded as under :- 3 M/s. Mamta Gold Pvt. Ltd. In the case of Orchid Industries P Ltd (supra). Ld.AO issued 133(6) notices to the parties. Despite the fact that the parties did not appear before the L…