CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 680High Court2017#259 most cited

What is CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

303

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. · Gagandeep Infrastructure · 394 ITR 680 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · source of source · share capital · share premium · creditworthiness · genuineness of transaction · assessee's onus · burden of proof

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 272247 Taxmann 245

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 131Section 148Section 142(1)Section 147Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceshare capital and share premiumcreditworthiness of the creditorsummons under section 131share application moneypermanent account numbersection 56(2)(viib)paper companyaddition under section 68genuineness of the transactionaddition u/s 68unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2047/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2047/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcm 2068 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Tanish Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1636/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1636/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tanish Dealers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadct 1242 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. Ms Savera Towers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2275/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Savera Towers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaocs 9744 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give…

ACIT, Circle- 50(1), New Delhi vs. Deepa Kapoor, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6035/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-2013 Deepa Kapoor, Vs. Acit, 5, Arjun Marg, Dlf Circle-50(1), Phase-1, New Delhi. Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Abgpk6496F Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Acit, Vs. Deepa Kapoor, Circle-50(1), 5, Arjun Marg, Dlf New Delhi. Phase-1, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Abgpk6496F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Shri P. Roy Chaudhary, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2018 Order Per Bench: Challenging The Order Dated 22.05.2017 Passed In A.No.198/2016-17 By The Cit(A)-17, New Delhi, Both The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…he assessee and they cannot be used against the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee. introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and it has been held so by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bom.) and it has no application to the assessment year under consideration. On this premise, the ld. AR submitted that since M/s Pranav Sports Academy is also an assessee and has been filing returns of income as is evident from page Nos.21 and 22 of the paper book, the identity of such an entity is beyond reasonable doubt and, in such a situatio…

Deepa Kapoor, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 50(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4318/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-2013 Deepa Kapoor, Vs. Acit, 5, Arjun Marg, Dlf Circle-50(1), Phase-1, New Delhi. Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Abgpk6496F Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Acit, Vs. Deepa Kapoor, Circle-50(1), 5, Arjun Marg, Dlf New Delhi. Phase-1, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Abgpk6496F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Shri P. Roy Chaudhary, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2018 Order Per Bench: Challenging The Order Dated 22.05.2017 Passed In A.No.198/2016-17 By The Cit(A)-17, New Delhi, Both The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…he assessee and they cannot be used against the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee. introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and it has been held so by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bom.) and it has no application to the assessment year under consideration. On this premise, the ld. AR submitted that since M/s Pranav Sports Academy is also an assessee and has been filing returns of income as is evident from page Nos.21 and 22 of the paper book, the identity of such an entity is beyond reasonable doubt and, in such a situatio…

ITO, WD-9(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…did not appear before the ld. Assessing Officer in response to summons issued to them. He relied on the following case-law:- a) Orrissa Corporation Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) b) Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Mumbai HC) c) Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. 394 ITR 680 (Mumbai HC) 4.1.1. He specifically pointed out to the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A), at page 32 & 33 of his order, wherein the factual errors committed by the Assessing Officer have been highlighted and submitted that he ld. D/R could not controvert these findings and argued that the matter cannot be restored to the Assessing Officer for fre…

ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Fact Tradelink P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1834/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer-12(2)(2) M/S. Facts Tradelink P. Ltd. Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 206, Ghanshyam Tower Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road M.G. Road, Borivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400066 Pan – Aaacf7985Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra Respondent By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 30.12.2016 & It Relates To A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv GubgotraFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Income Tax Officer-12(2)(2) M/s. Facts Tradelink P. Ltd. Room No. 146A, 1st Floor 206, Ghanshyam Tower Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road M.G. Road, Borivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400066 PAN – AAACF7985Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra Respondent by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Date of Hearing: 04.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 30.…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2273/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadct 6373 M ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2273/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aacch 3712 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt.Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 2270/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadct 6373 M ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2273/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aacch 3712 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Arogya Bharti Health Park P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2943/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 68

…rought to tax within the ambit of provisions of section 68 before insertion of Proviso to section by the Finance Act, 2012 wef 01-04-2013 which is evident from the fact that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd vs 394 ITR 680 (Bom) observed that the Proviso inserted wef 01-04-2013 is considered to be prospective in nature and applicable to AY 2013-14. This fact is further strengthened by the latest decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in a series of tax appeals in Income-tax Appeals No. 26 to 31 of 2017 dated 08-06-2017, where the Hon’ble High Court h…

M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 573/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…2-13 Page 14 of 31 investors in their accounts can be investigated independently in the respective cases as the Explanation to section 68 is not retrospective as held by Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom) [2017] 247 Taxman 245 (Bom), [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom) and Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. 403 ITR 415 (Bom). The learned Counsel further, placing reliance in the case of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. [2012] 248 CTR (Del.) 33 / 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) SLP dismissed reported CC-15640/2012 dtd. 17.09.2012 submitted that mere fai…

Shree Giriraj Ferromet P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3697/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri P Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom.) wherein honorable High court has considered the decision of division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). 9. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). He argued that once the parties have not attended the proceedings, the AO has no alternative except to make addition. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the cas…

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

ITA 342/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" Bench, Mumbai Before Hon’ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Hon’ble Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member M/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…

Sunshine Metals & Alloys Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3212/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 68

…on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom.) wherein honorable High court has considered the decision of division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom) & Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR (SC) and held as under: - “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 had not appeared before…

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

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7280/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

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) :

For Appellant: J.P.Bairagra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…is further fortified by the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in PCIT Vs. Veedhata Tower Private Limited [403 ITR 415] which, in turn, draws strength from the earlier decision of same court rendered in CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 680] and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5]. Therefore, weighing the facts of present case against the touchstone of ratio of binding judicial precedents rendered by higher judicial authorities, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. first appellate authority. ITA.No.7280/Mum/2014 Kukreja Developers &…

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

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133ASection 68

…apital and share premium. Further, we find that the above said proviso to section 68 was inserted by Finance Income Tax Act, 1961, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 has held that the said proviso is prospective and cannot be applied to assessment years preceding the same. We may gainfully refer to the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court which is also relevant in this case: During the previous relevant to the subject Assessment Year the assessee had increased its share capital from Rs.2,50,000/to…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. K.P. Textiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1703/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm& Hon’Ble Sh.N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1703/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal
Section 68

…were ignored. The AO has not given any modus operandi for allegation of cash transfer being unaccounted monies of the assessee being introduced in the form of share capital. Ld. AR had relied upon the judgment in the case of Gagandeep Infrastruture Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 680 (Bom), Ratnakar Infrastruture Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 3843/Mum/2016), Alcon Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1946/Mum/2016) and Wiz Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1162/Kol/2015). On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Konark Structural Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. DCIT 2018 (1) TMI 1045. The a…

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

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…(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. Mehta [2017] 251 Taxman 346 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom-HC). 6. On the other hand, t…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indo Energy International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 523/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ly justify the creditworthiness of the investing companies. The ld. Counsel of the assessee further placed reliance upon the following case laws: 1 ACIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [40 CCH 128](Mumbai) 2 CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 680](Bombay) 3 Green Infra Ltd Vs. ITO [145 ITD 240](Mumbai) 4 CIT Vs. Green Infra Ltd [392 ITR 7](Bombay) 5 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [397 ITR 136](Bombay) 6 ITO Vs. M/s Sringeri Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.3924/Mum/2014] (ITAT Mumbai) 7 DCIT Vs. M/s Alcon Biosciences P Ltd [ITA No.l946/M/2016](ITAT Mumbai) 8 Khubchandani Healthparks Pv…

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

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

ITA 5845/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop HiwaseFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya
Section 143(2)Section 68

…iso inserted by the Finance Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013 is applicable prospectively or retrospectively, has been decided by various courts. According to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom), the Hon’ble Court observed that Proviso inserted to section 68 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 is considered to be prospective in nature and applicable from A.Y.2013-14 onwards. Therefore, we are of the view that no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of share capital and share application money or share premium before…