Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaizen Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2899/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.34/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2899/Mum/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) बनाम 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 / Vs. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ce is placed on following judicial pronouncements. 1. Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj)(HC) [SLP dismissed by SC (2002) 254 ITR (St.) 275] 2. CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.)(HC). 3. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom)(HQ 4. CIT vs. Chandela Trading Co. P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 232 (Cal.)(HC) 5. ACIT v. Sanjay M. Jhaveri (2015) 168 TTJ 751(Mum.)(Trib.) 4.7 Considering the evidence brought on record by the appellant company regarding the loans taken during the year, the explanations furnished and after considering the case laws on the issue, the addition made…

M/S Kundali Jewel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3511/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer 12 Pvt. Ltd. (3)(1) Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (E), Mumbai. Marg, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4337/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer 12 बिधम/ M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) (3)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Thakur Village, Kandivali Marg, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Pnek10340B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm) The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.3511/Mum/2019 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…he assessee to prove the source from where the share applicants have acquired the amounts advanced to the assessee and in this regard, the AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. V/s. (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom). 11 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 10.2 When share application money is received through normal banking channels, the identity of the share applicant stands proved. However, it is to be mentioned that merely because amounts have been received through banking channels, it is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the credits. But the existen…

ITO 14 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Supergold Properties Pvt Ltd.[Successor of M/S Advaya Tex Trading Pvt Ltd], Mumbai

…rove capacity of the investor, then the AO cannot make additions. The appellant- has also relied on the following case laws wherein the facts are similar to the assessee's facts. "i. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. V/s. (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.).: Where any credits are found in the books of the assessee, the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the same and on failure of the assessee, the presumption u/s. 68 becomes absolute and the credits are treated as 'income' of the assessee. The assessee can discharge the onus by producing confirmation from the creditor and pro…

ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Nextgen Constructions P.Tld (Changed to M/S Aetius Construction P. Ltd Which Is Further Amalgamated With M/S Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…assessee denied having any connection with Shri Sanjoy Kumar. The assessee submitted that the payments were received from M/s MSPL though regular banking channels. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Orient Trading Co. V/s CIT (49 ITR 723) for the submissions that the assessee was not required to prove the source of source of credits appearing in its books of account. In the above background, the assessee submitted that primary ingredients as envisaged by Sec.68 were fulfilled by the assessee and therefore, the additions were unjustified. 3.5 The assessee, vide another submission d…

Unity Infrasporjects Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7270 & 7075/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2013-14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7270 & 7075/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2013-14) M/s Unity Infraprojects DCIT CC – 8(2), 6th floor, Room No. 658, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1252, Pushpanjali Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACU4560E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 139 & 140/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2013-14) DCIT CC – 8(2), M/s Unity Infraprojects 6…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Joitkumar B. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

…he case of Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT (103 ITR 344). 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: - (i) Nemi chand Kothari v. CIT (136 Taxman 213 (HC Gau.), (ii) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (49 ITR 723) (iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (103 ITR 344) (iv) CIT v. Vrindavan Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 71 of 2015 dated 12th August, 2015 (v) Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. v. CIT 970 ITR 407) (vi) LajwantiSial & Others v. CIT (30 ITR 228) 15. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Asses…