“permanent account number”

Fact Enterprise Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 8 (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Fact Enterprise Ltd. Dcit 8 (1) C-208, Crystal Plaza, Aayakar Bhavn, M.K.Road, Opp. Infinity Mall, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf0955A Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Nishant Somiya Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions along with the proof of identification of the creditors. Assessee merely submitted the loan confirmations without stating Permanent Account Number with respect to parties amounting to ₹ 46,710,000/–. The assessee was once again requested to furnish the information which was not complied with ... Before the learned CIT (A), nothing was produced and therefore the addition was confirmed. Thus, before the lower authorities only the confirmation without Permanent Account Number or any other information proving the identity, creditworthiness of those parties and genuineness Fact Enterprise Ltd; A.Y. 12-13 of deposit of money with

DCIT Cor 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Build Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

earliest. At present the firm has PAN number allotted by Mumbai jurisdiction. Necessary action would be taken to transfer that the permanent account number two income tax Officer Ward 4 (2) a jurisdiction and accordingly revised return would be filed. The forum has not recorded cash component even

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Built Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

earliest. At present the firm has PAN number allotted by Mumbai jurisdiction. Necessary action would be taken to transfer that the permanent account number two income tax Officer Ward 4 (2) a jurisdiction and accordingly revised return would be filed. The forum has not recorded cash component even

M/S. Euro Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

diamond along with their respective rates etc. The invoice also contains IEC number of the supplier, VAT/CST registration as well as Income Tax Permanent Account number of the supplier. The invoice also bears the requisite declarations as required as per extant rules and regulations. Thereafter, the consignment is delivered

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

evidence submitted before us at page number 3112 – 3114. The assessee has submitted the details of write off of 131 parties stating their permanent account number in most of the cases and stated that the same may be allowed. 025. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders ... Even in the form of additional evidences before us, the assessee has merely submitted the name of the parties, the amount, and the permanent account number of some of the parties. For the claim of the bad debt, the assessee should have shown that these amounts have been included

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

evidence submitted before us at page number 3112 – 3114. The assessee has submitted the details of write off of 131 parties stating their permanent account number in most of the cases and stated that the same may be allowed. 025. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders ... Even in the form of additional evidences before us, the assessee has merely submitted the name of the parties, the amount, and the permanent account number of some of the parties. For the claim of the bad debt, the assessee should have shown that these amounts have been included

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

permanent incorporated on 4th January, 1989 and was also allotted a permanent incorporated on 4th January, 1989 and was also allotted a permanent account number in September, 2001. To this extent, there is no dispute. account number in September, 2001. To this extent, there is no dispute. account number

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

permanent incorporated on 4th January, 1989 and was also allotted a permanent incorporated on 4th January, 1989 and was also allotted a permanent account number in September, 2001. To this extent, there is no dispute. account number in September, 2001. To this extent, there is no dispute. account number

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

permanent incorporated on 4th January, 1989 and was also allotted a permanent incorporated on 4th January, 1989 and was also allotted a permanent account number in September, 2001. To this extent, there is no dispute. account number in September, 2001. To this extent, there is no dispute. account number

Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vikas Manohar Bafna, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

assessee has obtained accommodation entry from three different entities whose ITA Nos.940,939,941/Mum/2022 Vikas Manohar Bafna; A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 permanent account number and Tin number was mentioned. The total amount of accommodation entry is ₹27,25,493/-. The bill providers also in the statement have admitted

Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vikas Manohar Bafna, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

assessee has obtained accommodation entry from three different entities whose ITA Nos.940,939,941/Mum/2022 Vikas Manohar Bafna; A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 permanent account number and Tin number was mentioned. The total amount of accommodation entry is ₹27,25,493/-. The bill providers also in the statement have admitted

Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vikas Manohar Bafna, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

assessee has obtained accommodation entry from three different entities whose ITA Nos.940,939,941/Mum/2022 Vikas Manohar Bafna; A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 permanent account number and Tin number was mentioned. The total amount of accommodation entry is ₹27,25,493/-. The bill providers also in the statement have admitted

Dhananjay G. Mishra, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeal NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.477/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Dhananjay G. Mishra बिधम/ Acit, Circle-20(1) Prop. Yeoman Marine Piramal Chambers, Vs. Services (Yms) Lalbaugh, Mumbai. W-1402, World Crest, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, The World Towers Delisle Road, Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aflpm1475K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri Mahiita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Not Allowing The Credit Of Tds Of Rs.24,41,710/-. 3. Brief Facts Pertaining To The Issue Is That Assessee Is An Individual Having A Proprietary Concern Running In The Name Of Yeoman Marine Services ( Herein After In Short ‘Yms’) Which Was Succeeded By A Private Limited Company Yeoman Marine Services Private Limited (Herein After In Short ‘Ymspl’) W.E.F. 01.11.2015. Appellant Is A Contractor In Ship Repairing Business. During The Year The Appellant

referred to in sub-rule (1).] (ii) The declaration filed by the deductee under clause (i) shall contain the name, address, permanent account number of the person to whom credit is to be given, payment or credit in relation to which credit is to be given and reasons for giving

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Venture & M/s. Span Realtors 16. In the case before us, the appellant by producing the loanconfirmation-certificates signed by the creditors, disclosing their permanent account numbers and address and further indicating that the loan was taken by account payee cheques, no doubt, prima facie, discharged the initial burden and those

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Venture & M/s. Span Realtors 16. In the case before us, the appellant by producing the loanconfirmation-certificates signed by the creditors, disclosing their permanent account numbers and address and further indicating that the loan was taken by account payee cheques, no doubt, prima facie, discharged the initial burden and those

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Venture, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Venture & M/s. Span Realtors 16. In the case before us, the appellant by producing the loanconfirmation-certificates signed by the creditors, disclosing their permanent account numbers and address and further indicating that the loan was taken by account payee cheques, no doubt, prima facie, discharged the initial burden and those

Taradevi Jyoti Kumar Bubna, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

received rectification order dated 12/12/2016 reiterating the earlier intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The assessee pointed out that he was allotted two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) viz., AAJPB6138P and AIKPB8450D. The assessee did file a letter before the ld. AO seeking cancellation of one PAN. The assessee also pointed

M/S Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeal (ITA No

relevant information was not shares by the proprietor with the credit rating agency. Even the basic Assessment Year: 2016-17 information such as permanent account number, and details of suppliers, customers, bankers and auditors were not shared. Rameshwar Trading & Co. only had 2 employees and had experience of only

Dy CIT 9 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atlanta Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeal (ITA No

relevant information was not shares by the proprietor with the credit rating agency. Even the basic Assessment Year: 2016-17 information such as permanent account number, and details of suppliers, customers, bankers and auditors were not shared. Rameshwar Trading & Co. only had 2 employees and had experience of only