CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

ITO 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Confiance Trading Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 6(2)(1), M/S. Confiance Trading 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.510, 308, Adharu Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, M.K. Road, Sun Mill Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaccc4316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmvir, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R D E R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO 6(2)(1), M/s. Confiance Trading 5th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.510, 308, Adharu Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, M.K. Road, Sun Mill Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AACCC4316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dharmvir, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member: The present a…

M/S Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Harivardhan Steel & ITO – 12(2)(3), Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Room No.226, Shop No.2, 2nd Floor, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Casablanca Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. A-Wing, Mumbai - 400020 Old Raviraj Complex, Jesal Park, Bhayander (East), Thane – 401 105 PAN: AABCH 6483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R…

Varad Vinayak Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (3)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

…ly from A.Y. 2013-14. This view is also strengthen by the ratio of order in the case of Green Infra Ltd. (145 ITD 240) (Mum). Respectfully following recent judgement of jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT Vs. Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 272 (Bom HC). I also find that various case laws relied upon by the Appellant substantially advance the case of the Appellant in this regard. Moreover, amendment to sec. 68 is also w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14. It is further noticed that the A.O. has accepted the amount of share capital of Rs.100/- per share but added only Rs.1900/- per share being sha…

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E)

…ly from A.Y. 2013-14. This view is also strengthen by the ratio of order in the case of Green Infra Ltd. (145 ITD 240) (Mum). Respectfully following recent judgement of jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT Vs. Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 272 (Bom HC). I also find that various case laws relied upon by the Appellant substantially advance the case of the Appellant in this regard. Moreover, amendment to sec. 68 is also w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14. It is further noticed that the A.O. has accepted the amount of share capital of Rs.100/- per share but added only Rs.1900/- per share being sha…

Fsk Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4910/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Fsk Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ito – 6(2)(3), बिाम/ 12, Naik Nagar, Lbs Marg, Sion (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-5821-D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4317/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito – 6(2)(3), Fsk Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan 12, Naik Nagar, Lbs Marg Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 Sion (W), Mumbai-400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-5821-D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri S. N. Kabra, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 27/03/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed

…e identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness was duly proved by the assessee, the additions were to be deleted, inter-alia, in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [80 Taxmann.com 272]. 6.4 Aggrieved, the assessee as well as revenue is in further appeal before us. 6.5 We find that the loans of Rs.131.47 Lacs were from directors and group entities and the assessee had filed requisite documents to substantiate these transactions during remand proceedings. It has been noted by Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. AO has also accepted t…

DCIT 9(3(2), Mumbai vs. G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…itted that share premium is capital receipt and not taxable for which reliance is placed on Hon'ble High Court’s Decision in case of Vodaphone India Services P.L,td. v/s Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bombay) Para No. 25, CIT v/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 394 ITR 680 (Bombay High Court) and CIT v/s Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 93 CCH 0016 (Del HC) dated 16/4/2015.This submission of assessee appears to be correct as per judgments cited as above 13 M/s. G.L. Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vii). All investor companies are still share holders of the company even as on today. 4.1.5. The ITAT by the impugned order aff…

Adhoi Vyapar Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7308/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7309/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7310/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7311/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Adhoi Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Ito-9(1)(1), R.No. 205, 2Nd Floor, A-502, 234, Manish Garden Chs, बिाम/ Vs. 4 Bunglow, Andheri(W), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aahca-6296-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2009- 10 To 2012-13 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority

…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). Therefore, the assessee was not even otherwise obligated to prove…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…aper book. These confirmation letters were filed before the learned CIT(A). Learned AR further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has followed decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also held in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd. (84 taxamnn.com 58) that once the assessee had produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of share applicant companies, burden would shift on the Revenue to establish their cases…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 1313/Mum/20 Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 41 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member)] ITA No. 1313/Mum/20 Assessment year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai ……………….………Appellant Vs Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt Ltd ……………………Respondent 13/14, Sai Chambers, Saroval Vihar Road Sector 11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 4006 414 [PAN: AAACL4054E] Appearances by Brajendra Kumar for the appellant Devendra Jain for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: : September 9, 2021 Da…

DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sumatichand Gouti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc- 4(2) M/S Sumatichand Gouti बनाम/ R.No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Vs. 4Th Floor, 80/82, Dhanji India Bldg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Street, Mumbai – 400 004

…6.10 It is further noted that the proviso to section 68 of proving the source of the source of funds is applicable only from the year relevant to AY 2013-14 as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. (394 ITR 680). Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) while explaining the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (supra) has held that in a situation like the instant one, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee but the department can go after the shareholders…

DCIT Circle- 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Jostar Orgotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 103/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-(6)(3)(2) M/S Jostar Orgotech Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, R. No. 576 A-501, Innova Marathon Next Gen. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400 008 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-2496-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri J. P. Bairagra– Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 02/09/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) On 28/03/2015. The Sole Ground By The Revenue Read As Under: - On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,68,60,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Share Application Money/Share Capital & Share Premium Which Is Held As Unexplained

…remand report on the quantum of premium and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (317 ITR 218) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272]. The assessee also submitted that Ld. AO had no power to determine the quantum of premium or the method of computing the premium since it was the assessee’s own prerogative to charge premium on issue of shares and determine the same as per business negotiations. 5.5 The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of material on record, observed t…

Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Cdit-CC-3(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 7507/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cc – 3(4) बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, 106, Sagar Shopping Centre J. P. Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcd-9604-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Addition U/S 68 For Rs.67 Lacs In Ay 2009-10, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Assessment Was Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. On 147 On 30/06/2016 Wherein Impugned Order Was Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Cit(A)] On 26/10/2018. The Assessee Being Resident Corporate Assessee Is Stated

…or premium would be the prerogative of the board of directors. Therefore, under these circumstances, the additions could not be made by Ld. AO, inter-alia, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272] & subsequent decision in CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Private Limited [88 Taxmann.com 502]. However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. So far as the legal position is concerned, we find that as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax A…

ITO 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Aniata Dyes & Intermediates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

…bunal) 12. Per contra learned Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of learned CIT(A). He relied upon the following case laws from Hon'ble Bombay High Court :- 7 M/s. Anita Dyes & Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. • CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (394 ITR 680) • CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 136) • Principal CIT Vs. Apeak Infotech (397 ITR 148) 13. As regards learned Departmental Representative reliance of NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (supra), the same was an ex-parte order by Hon'ble Apex Court, where Hon'ble Apex Court had given a finding on the bogus nature on the facts and circumstanc…

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

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

…e Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (SC) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). As regards the statement of Shri Navin Nishar, Chartered accountant that was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 11.01.2018 in the course of the survey proceeding, wherein he had stated to have arranged four companies for Shri ITA No. 714/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 7 Dy. CIT, C.C-1(4) Vs. M/s Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Kirit kumar Dharshibhai…

DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shubham Motiwala & Tax -13(2)(2), Vs. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 146, 1St Floor, Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road, Chincholi Jn,S.V. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Malad, Mumbai – 400064

…CIT(A) further drawing support from certain judicial pronouncements, viz. (i) CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom); and (iv) CIT Vs. Steller Investments Limited. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del), therein observed, that the „first proviso‟ to Sec. 68 of the Act, which as a pre-condition for discharge of onus by an assessee company as regards the „nature‟ and „source‟ of a sum consisting of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount…