Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

…2001) (ii) The High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 151 (Gujrat) (iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. (iv) In the case of Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. [167 TTJ 82 (mum)] (v) In the case of H.R. Mehta Vs. ACIT [387 ITR 561 (Bombay)] He has also contended that the ld. CIT(A) has referred the matter to the A.O for submitting the remand report on verification of all the supporting document furnished by the assesse but A.O has not made any adverse remarks in the remand report. The ld. Counsel has referred the fo…

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

…2001) (ii) The High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 151 (Gujrat) (iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. (iv) In the case of Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. [167 TTJ 82 (mum)] (v) In the case of H.R. Mehta Vs. ACIT [387 ITR 561 (Bombay)] He has also contended that the ld. CIT(A) has referred the matter to the A.O for submitting the remand report on verification of all the supporting document furnished by the assesse but A.O has not made any adverse remarks in the remand report. The ld. Counsel has referred the fo…

Rajanikant C. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

…facts in not providing opportunity of cross examination of Shri Chetan Shah. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. R.W. Premises Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 93 CCH 143 (Bom) 2. CIT vs Rajesh Kumar 306 ITR 2W7 (Del) 3. Cannon Industries vs DCIT 167 TTJ 82 (Mum) He further placed reliance upon the judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxmann 6 (P&H) for the proposition that no addition can be made on the basis of loose sheets in absence of any other material. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the orders of lower authorities are justified a…