How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. Apeak Infotech?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. Apeak Infotech (88 Taxmann.com 695), spanning 2018 to 2024.

Pr. CIT v. Apeak Infotech

88 Taxmann.com 695High Court2017#2424 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Apeak Infotech authority for?

The proviso added to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with unexplained cash credits, does not have retrospective effect and cannot be invoked for assessment years prior to its introduction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Apeak Infotech · Section 68 · proviso to Section 68 · unexplained cash credits · retrospective effect · assessment year 2012-13 · share premium · share application money

Issues it is cited on

section 106 section 23(4)section 23(1)annual letting value section 24(a)annual value source of source share capital and share premium creditworthiness of the creditor deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)share application money

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Apeak Infotech

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Keepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 4285/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…e effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso....” (ii) Pr. CIT vs. Apeak Infotech (88 Taxmann.com 695) [Bom HC]: “Similarly, the amendment to section 68 of the Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has…

ACIT Cir-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur vs. M/S. 21St Century Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 207/NAG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri MahaveerAtal, CAFor Respondent: ShriPiyushKohle, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56

…oner (Appeals).' 12 ITA207/NAG/2017 ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR VS 21st CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. NAGAPUR 2.19 The Assessee will also draw your support to the latest judgment of Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT VsApeakInfotech 397 ITR 148 (Bom) (Nagpur Bench). The said judgment discussed both the proposition of prospectivity of section 56(2)(viib) and the jurisprudence that the share capital and share premium are in a nature of capital receipt and cannot be brought to tax, Para 7 (c) In any case, we may point out that the amendment to section 68 of the Act by the addition of prov…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ource brought in section 68 of the Act was brought w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and is not retrospective as held by Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014] (Mum HC) and PCIT vs. Apeak Infotech – [2017] 397 ITR 148 (Bombay) ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. c. The company is allowed to make investments in the shares and securities of any company established under the Companies Act, 1956 as per the objects of the company. Comments on the entries in the bank accounts of investor companies: In this regard it is submitted that all the a…

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

ITA 199/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharmvir, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…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…

Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, VS. DCIT, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), PAN: AADCB 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. PAN: AADCB 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue by Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel for DR Date of hearing: 12/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 06/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MO…

DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Ysr Dist.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2212/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ction 56(2)(viib) cannot be applied, the receipt of share premium being a capital receipt cannot be taxed. [Refer: The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. Vs. UOI (368 ITR 1) and Pr. CIT Vs. Apeak Infotech (397 ITR 148) cited at the time of hearing wherein it has been held that receipt of share premium is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. 2.2.5. Further, the Appellant further submits that Department cannot re-characterize the transaction relating to issue of debentures to issue of equity shares in the absence of any enabling provisions in the Act. [R…

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

ITA 6976/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…lied 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 circumstances of that case. The reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Royal Rich Developers (P)…

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

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITA No. 714/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 1 Dy. CIT, C.C-1(4) Vs. M/s Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) 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 PAN No. AACCH3946B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.R Revenue by :…

M/S Advent Commodities Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Ward-4(3) vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

…ourt in the case referred to supra is not applicable to the facts of the instant case and is factually distinghuishable. 6.1. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. AR in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Apeak Infotech reported in 88 Taxmann.com 695 dt 08.06.2017 wherein the question raised before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court are as under: “A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct to uphold the decision on Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the share premium received by the assessee-company cannot be taxed u/s 68 of the Act ign…

Shakti Share Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4100/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…TR 294 (HC-Delhi) 29. Mod Creations (P.) Ltd. v/s. ITO 13 Taxmann.com 1 14 (HC- Delhi) 30. CIT v/s. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. 32 taxmann.com 91 (HC-Allahabad) 31. Jaya Securities Ltd. v/s. CIT 166 taxman 7 (HC- Allahabad) 32. Pr. CIT vs Apeak Infotech 397 ITR 148 (Bom-HC) 33. Pr. CIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt Ltd 403 ITR 415(Bom-HC) 34. Pr. CIT vs . Vaishnodevi refoils & Solvex 96 Taxmann.com 469 (SC) & 100 CCH 228 (Guj-HC) 8. The Ld. A.R. also argued that amendment in section 56(2) (vii)(b) was effective from A.Y. 2013-14 and therefore not applicable to the instant year and the assessee was at liberty to i…

Exind Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tion before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that Section 78(1) and 78(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 are independent and cannot be read together. He further referred to the following case laws :- i. PCIT vs Apeak Infotech, 397 ITR 148 (Bom.) ii. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs DCIT, 49 ITD 355 (Kol.) iii. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., (368 ITR 1) (Bom.) iv. CBDT Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29.01.2015 v. ACIT vs Rajesh Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 6251/Mum/2017 dated 20.02.2019 vi. CIT vs Allahabad Bank Ltd., 73 ITR 745 (SC) vii. DCIT vs Finproject In…

Vijay Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5754/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) 7. Order in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bombay HC) 8. Order in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bombay HC) 9. Order in the case of PCIT v. Apeak Info Tech (2017) 397 ITR 148 (Bombay HC) 10. Order in the case of Cit Vs. Diamond Products Limited (2009) (Delhi) Page 4 of 14 Contents of Synopsis Page 5 of 14 Page 6 of 14 Page 7 of 14 Page 8 of 14 (C.1) Further, a copy of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Benches dated 28.04.2016 in the case of Shri Rajendra Kumar Somani vs. DCIT in Page 9 of 14…

M/S. Tara Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1572/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1572/DEL/2017 A.Y. : 2011-12 M/S TARA MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), 314-315, PP TOWER, NEW DELHI NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI – 34 (PAN: AAACT2680C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Department By : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. The…

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Geetanjali Space Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.903, B-47, Shakti Dhara 9th Floor, Society, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Colony Road, M.K. Road, Bapu Nagar, Ahmedabad, Mumbai - 400020 Gujarat – 382 350 PAN: AADCG2733L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. CIT, M/s. Geetanjali Space Central Circle -1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.903, 9th Floor, B-47, Shakti Dhara Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. Society, Old C.G.O. Bldg. (Annexe) Colony R…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Gateway Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…t in the case referred to supra is not applicable to the facts of the instant case and is factually distinghuishable. 3.3.1. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. AR in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Apeak Infotech reported in 88 Taxmann.com 695 dt 08.06.2017 wherein the question raised before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court are as under: “A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct to uphold the decision on Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the share premium received by the assessee-company cannot be taxed under Section 68 of t…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Topaz Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2271/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata.................................………....………………...…………………….….Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…Court in the case referred to supra is not applicable to the facts of the instant case and is factually distinguishable. 6.1. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. AR in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Apeak Infotech reported in 88 Taxmann.com 695 dt 08.06.2017 wherein the question raised before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court are as under: "A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct to uphold the decision on Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the share premium received by the assessee-company cannot be taxed under Section 68 of t…

Balbir Ispat P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6953/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish V. Pophane, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…o not meet the standards set in the various judicial pronouncements. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee as regards to amount received on issue of share capital as premium held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case PCIT vs. Apeak infotech (2017) (397 ITR 148 (Bom), wherein it is held that share application money and premium are capital receipts and cannot be considered as income. Hon’ble Bombay High court has considered the following question No. B:- “B. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was right in deletin…