Dr. Anita Sahai v. DIT

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

…stained in law.\n1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC)\n2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC)\n3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC)\n4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC)\n5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All)\n6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will\nhave to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against\nthe assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of\naccount of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is\nrebuttable. In refuting the presumption…

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

…be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will have to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is 30 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. reb…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

…be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will have to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raise…

ACIT CIR -4(2) (1) , THANE vs. M/S. MUKTI GOLD PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

…udicial precedents:- 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968): 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/S CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. Dhirajlal Girdharilal V/S CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/S DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/S ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)- CIT- IV v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd [2013] 34 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat):- In the instant case, the AO simply made on ad-hoc basis whereas it is well settled law that addition cannot be made on ad-hoc/ estimation basis. On the Similar facts also the Mumbai Tribunal in ca…

AAKASH FILMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -50, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. DhirajlalGirdharilal V/s CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/s DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)-It will have to be kept in mind that section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raise…

ACIT 31(1), MUMBAI vs. GUNDECHA BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshacit-31(1) M/S Gundecha Builders, Room No. 111, C-13, 801, Hubtown Solaries, Vs. 1St Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E), N.S. Phadke Marg, Off Telui Mumbai-400051 Galli, Near Andheri Flyover, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400062. Pan: Aaafg0848E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (C.A.) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

…elied upon the decision of CIT vs. Roman & Co. [1986] 67 ITR 11 (SC), CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8(SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT [1995] 37 IR 151 (SC), Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT [226 ITR 734 (SC)], Dr. Anita Sahai vs. DIT [266 ITR 597 (All)] and MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ito [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)]. The ld. AR also furnished the copy of From-16 of Mahendra K. Jain, Gopal Sharma and Lalit V Jain along with slip of contribution of Employment Provident Fund (EPF). 11. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. COSMOS REALTORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

…annot be sustained in law. Even otherwise, presumption cannot take the shape of the evidence however strong it may be unless and until such presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (Del.) s…

RHYTHM REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…annot be sustained in law. Even otherwise, presumption cannot take the shape of the evidence however strong it may be unless and until such presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (Del.) s…

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

…t be sustained in law. Even otherwise, presumption cannot take the shape of the evidence however strong it may be unless and until such presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (D…