ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

GANESHARAM GALBARAM MALI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

…ounding circumstances,\npreponderance of probabilities, human conduct, and the material\navailable on record. The AO is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act\nbut must act on material that is relevant and reliable.\n9. 14. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [264 ITR 154), the Hon'ble\nBombay High Court upheld additions where transactions lacked\ntransparency, reinforcing the principle that apparent deficiencies in\nevidence must be considered in light of surrounding corroborative\ncircumstances.\"\nNow it is to be submitted that the statement of Imran Asfaque Ansari\nonly corroborated the excel sheet and relevan…

GANESHARAM GALBARAM MALI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Us.

…o 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, has further clarified that in cases of suspicious transactions, tax available on record. The AO is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act but must act on material that is relevant and reliable. 9.14. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [264 ITR 154), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld additions where transactions lacked transparency, reinforcing the principle that apparent deficiencies in evidence must be considered in light of surrounding corroborative circumstances." Now it is to be submitted that the statement of Imran Asfaque Ansari only corroborated the excel sheet and relevant deta…

GANESHARAM GALBARAM MALI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Us.

…o 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, has further clarified that in cases of suspicious transactions, tax available on record. The AO is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act but must act on material that is relevant and reliable. 9.14. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [264 ITR 154), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld additions where transactions lacked transparency, reinforcing the principle that apparent deficiencies in evidence must be considered in light of surrounding corroborative circumstances." Now it is to be submitted that the statement of Imran Asfaque Ansari only corroborated the excel sheet and relevant deta…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

…the Indian\nEvidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material\nupon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished\nfrom \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial\nevidence.\n\n8. 10. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd vs DCIT, 264 ITR 154, the\nHon'ble Bombay HC has held that where the transaction does\nnot appear to be overboard, the addition is to be sustained.\n\n8. 11. In State Bank of Patiala v. K Sharma [1996] 3 SCC 364,\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: \"Justice means\njustice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally\ndemand that the guilty…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f the Indian\nEvidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material\nupon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished\nfrom \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial\nevidence.\n8. 10. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd vs DCIT, 264 ITR 154, the\nHon'ble Bombay HC has held that where the transaction does\nnot appear to be overboard, the addition is to be sustained.\n8. 11. In State Bank of Patiala v. K Sharma [1996] 3 SCC 364, the\nHon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: \"Justice means\njustice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally\ndemand that the guilty s…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f the Indian\nEvidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material\nupon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished\nfrom \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial\nevidence.\n8. 10. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd vs DCIT, 264 ITR 154, the\nHon'ble Bombay HC has held that where the transaction does\nnot appear to be overboard, the addition is to be sustained.\n8. 11. In State Bank of Patiala v. K Sharma [1996] 3 SCC 364, the\nHon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: \"Justice means\njustice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally\ndemand that the guilty s…

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

…pport the addition. Reference was further made to the decision of support the addition. Reference was further made to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ’ble Bombay High Court in ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to be genuine or above board, the addition deserves to be sustained. be genuine or above board, the addition deserves to be sustained. be genuine or above board, the…

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

…pport the addition. Reference was further made to the decision of support the addition. Reference was further made to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ’ble Bombay High Court in ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to be genuine or above board, the addition deserves to be sustained. be genuine or above board, the addition deserves to be sustained. be genuine or above board, the…

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

…pport the addition. Reference was further made to the decision of support the addition. Reference was further made to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ’ble Bombay High Court in ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to (264 ITR 154) to hold that where a transaction does not appear to be genuine or above board, the addition deserves to be sustained. be genuine or above board, the addition deserves to be sustained. be genuine or above board, the…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. IRIS COMPUTERS LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhandy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Iris Computers Limited, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai Delhi. Room No. 1918, Air India Building, A-155, Road No. 4, New Nariman Point – 400 021. Delhi, Mahipalpur – 110037. Pan: Aaaci9670H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…proved the genuineness of the said transactions, then the AO could not make any addition to the income of the assessee in respect of said share application money by treating the same as unexplained cash credit is 68 of the Act. c. Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT. 264 ITR 154 (Gau) - The Hon'ble Court held that the assessee's burden is confined to prove creditworthiness of investors with reference to the transactions between the assessee and the creditor. d. M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 25 ITA No. 2595/M/2019 & CO No. 103/M/2021. e. DCTT vs. Rohini Builder, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) - The Hon'ble Court held that if the iden…

ITO-15(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRAVIR POLYMERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

…so proved the genuineness of the saidtransactions, then the AO could not make any addition to the income of theassessee in respect of said share application money by treating the same asunexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. b. Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT. 264 ITR 154 (Gau)- The Hon'ble Court held that the assessee's burden is confined to prove creditworthiness of investors with reference to the transactions between the assessee and the creditor. M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 25 ITA No. 2595/M/2019 & CO No. 103/M/2021 c. DCIT vs, Rohini Builder, 256 ITR 360 (Guj)- The Hon'ble Court held that if the identity o…