“genuineness of the transaction”

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Yardley Investment and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Room No.653, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Yardley Investment & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 1, Pearl Mansion N, 91, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 ……………. Respondent Pan: Aaacy0327M

erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee despite the fact that assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(4) erred in allowing the appeal ... delivery of goods, details of transporters, Inward & Outward register etc. None of the entities have produced these supporting details to proof the genuineness of their transactions made with aforesaid shell entities. • Directors, entry operators or key persons of above mentioned entities to whom sales are made, have admitted that

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

parties from whom share capital/share premium was received, along with supporting documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the parties, and genuineness of the transaction. However, the assessee did not produce any of the parties as directed. Since the assessee did not make compliance with some notices issued during ... total income under section 68 of the Act in the absence of proof of identity and creditworthiness of the parties, and genuineness of the transaction. In response, the assessee submitted copy of the income tax returns, audited financial statements, and bank statements, highlighting the payment made to the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Ndw Development Corporation LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Ndw Development Corporation 304, Piramal Chambers, Llp, Parel, Vs. B 201-202, Doodh Wala Complex, Mumbai-400012. Chsl, Belashis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aapfn4779C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Inder Solanki, Cit-Dr

unexplained money u/s. 694, without appreciating the fact that the onus squarely lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction undertaken during the relevant previous year. 4. The appellant craves leaves to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2. Briefly ... remand report from the AO, the ld CIT(A) has returned a clear finding that the assessee has substantiated the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in respect of transactions amounting to Rs 9,38,00,000/- out of Rs 9,91,15,000/-. It was submitted that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

ledger account, bank statement of the assessee are self-serving document and are not sufficient to prove the creditworthy of the lender and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee has not discharged its onus on providing these documents; thus, the assessee cannot raise the plea that AO ought to have ... also held that even during the appellate proceeding, the assessee has not furnished any document in support of creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction, Hence, it was concluded that there is no infirmity in the order of AO officer in making the addition of unsecured loan under

Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

ledger account, bank statement of the assessee are self-serving document and are not sufficient to prove the creditworthy of the lender and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee has not discharged its onus on providing these documents; thus, the assessee cannot raise the plea that AO ought to have ... also held that even during the appellate proceeding, the assessee has not furnished any document in support of creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction, Hence, it was concluded that there is no infirmity in the order of AO officer in making the addition of unsecured loan under

Vaibhav Nandkishor Patil, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 3 (4), Kalyan, Thane District

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Nandkishor Patil, Income Tax Officer 3 (4), Kalyan, C-602, Patel Heritage, Mumbai Sector, Kharghar Maharashtra -421301 Vs. Mumbai Maharastra-410210 (Pan: Amxpp0196M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri Praveen Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A), Panchkula, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1073638541(1), Dated 24.02.2025, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By Ito Ward 3(2), Kalyan, Dated 23.02.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing The Entire Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Rs.15,47,224 Without Making Any Independent Inquiry By Treating The Purchases As Bogus In Nature On Mere Suspicion That The Parties Were Listed On Website Of Mvat

element in such alleged purchases. It was also submitted that assessee has established the identity, credit worthiness of the supplier, as well as genuineness of the transaction. In this respect, reference was made to the MVAT Registration Certificate which identifies the supplier. To further establish the credit worthiness and genuineness