“genuineness of the transaction”

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

discharged its onus and addition under section 68 of the Act is not at all sustainable in as much as identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has been duly explained. In this regard learned assessee’s counsel placed reliance upon the ITAT decision in ITO Vs.Rajeev Suresh Ghai

Madanmohanlal G. Arora, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmadanmohanlal G. Arora Vs. Pcit, 28-1003, Seawoods Room No.120, 1St Floor, Estates (Nri Complex) Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Building No. 28, Sector C-43, G Block, Bandra 54,56 & 58 Nerul, Kurla Complex, Bandra Navi Mumbai – 400 706 (E), Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpa1302Q Appellant .. Respondent

appellate proceedings before us the assessee has failed to furnish the basic details pertaining to the purchase and sale made to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The case law referred by the ld. Counsel are factually distinguishable from the basic facts prevailing in the case of the assessee

Bhagatram Godhwani, Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagatram Godhwani, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building No. 5, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mital Industries Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabpg 3339 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

return acknowledgement, which proves that persons were all alive. According to him all the three ingredient of section 68 i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have been established by the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that additions were made based on the statement of Sh Praveen, Kumar Jain ... relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of satisfying identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction as assessee failed to produce the parties before the Assessing Officer, despite Bhagatram Godhwani specifically asked for in terms of notice under section

Mrs. Deepal N Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

arbitrary manner, therefore, the same are liable to be set-aside. Even on merits, the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, therefore, no addition is warranted. 4. Per contra, Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative ... Siroya, Proprietor of M/s Daksh Diamonds and copy of PAN Card of the aforesaid lender. Thus, the assessee discharge his onus in proving genuineness of the transaction, identity of the lender and creditworthiness of the lender. The AO brushed aside all the evidences furnished by the assessee and made addition

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 33 (1), Mumbai vs. Cnp Cotton, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-33(1), M//S Cnp Cotton, Room No. 711, C-12, Pratyakshkar B/50, Cotton Exchange, Near Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra, Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Pan No. Aaifc 5376 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ankur Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

taxed us be as unexplained cash credit since the assesse firm failed to prove the entity credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. In this regard we would first like to submit a detailed note on source and utilization of loan proceeds in chronological order ... filed is not required to be reproduced. 4.8 AO further held that the investigation done by the department led to doubt regarding the genuineness of the transactions. This doubt regarding the transactions occurred in the beginning of enquiry when the hand written bank statements of the parties were filed

ITO (Intl. Tax)- Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Philip Andrew Lobo, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

justified in not appreciating the fact that mere repayment of loan of Rs. 44 lacs by the assessee does not provide credibility of genuineness to the transaction of borrowed loan, in the absence of identity and creditworthiness of loan lender? 2 ITA No. : 436/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2010-11) ITO (International ... order passed by the Assessing Officer, more particularly to paragraphs 6 and 7 which reads as under: 6. In order the prove the genuineness of the transaction in the reassessment proceedings the assessee has filed letter dt 27.03.2016 alongwith following documents 1. Explanation of funds. 2. Ledger entries - Prerna Enterprises

ITO - 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Print Plus P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 7(3)(1) Vs. M/S Print Plus Pvt Ltd Room No. 142E, 1St 122, Bldg No. 2, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah & Nahar M.K.Road, Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp7030J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

purchases has called for the information and the assessee has submitted the details on 19-03- 2014. The A.O to test check the genuineness of the transactions has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the parties and the said notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities

ACIT, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Creo Lifestyles P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 6(2)(1) Vs. M/S Creo Lifestyle Pvt Room No. 504, Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 161, 2Nd Floor, Starcity Mk Road, Manmala Tank Road, Mumbai – 4000 020 Mahim West Mumbai – 400016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8961N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

check the transactions of the purchases has called for the information and documents to be produced. Further the A.O to test check the genuineness of the transactions has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the party parties and the said notice was returned unserved by M/s Creo

Asstt. CIT - CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mangal Buildhome P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.302, 3Rd Floor 903, 9Th Floor Chinatamani Arcade, Dhanji Street Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai - 400003 Old Cgo Building Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aapcs6589J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor A.1701-1702, Lotus Corporate Park Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pratishtha Bhavan Old Cgo Building Annexe Pan: Aagcm5420M Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor 202, 2Nd Floor Chinatamani Arcade Pratishtha Bhavan Opp. Bombay Bullion Building Old Cgo Building Annexe Dhanji Street, Mumbai - 400003 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcm2672M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Lid (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record and it is not necessary for the Department to bring a positive evidence ... immediate cash deposits and the onus is shifted to the Assessing Officer once the assessee fulfills and establishes the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed any financial data but merely gave his finding. He opposed the finding of the Ld.CIT

Asstt. CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.302, 3Rd Floor 903, 9Th Floor Chinatamani Arcade, Dhanji Street Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai - 400003 Old Cgo Building Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aapcs6589J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor A.1701-1702, Lotus Corporate Park Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pratishtha Bhavan Old Cgo Building Annexe Pan: Aagcm5420M Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor 202, 2Nd Floor Chinatamani Arcade Pratishtha Bhavan Opp. Bombay Bullion Building Old Cgo Building Annexe Dhanji Street, Mumbai - 400003 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcm2672M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Lid (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record and it is not necessary for the Department to bring a positive evidence ... immediate cash deposits and the onus is shifted to the Assessing Officer once the assessee fulfills and establishes the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed any financial data but merely gave his finding. He opposed the finding of the Ld.CIT

Mirage Ceramics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mirage Ceramics Private Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, D Wing, Trade Income Tax World 12(3)(2) Senapati Bapat Marg , Aykar Bhavan Vs. Kamla Mill Compound, M K Road Mumbai -400 013 Mumbai 20 Pan Aaecm2513R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J

floor, room No. 105, Calcutta, West Bengal wherein 78,60,000 shares were issued for ₹ 78,600,000. For verification of the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the party, the learned assessing officer issued notice under section 133 (6) to the above mentioned party, however no reply ... learned assessing officer noted that as the assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transaction. He further noted that the assessee company was given an opportunity to produce above depositor either before the learned assessing officer or before the ADIT (investigation), Kolkata

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

assumed that the appellant has grossly failed in its duty to mitigate the burden cast upon it in so far as proving the genuineness of the transaction from the said parties is concerned. 6.2.4 In this regard it is also pertinent to mention that while dealing with the concept ... parties had migrated somewhere else, their latest addresses should have been supplied and burden was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions when the assessee claimed that the purchases were genuine. It was true that Mio loan had been taken from those parties, the case before

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Netlink Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

entered into by appellant of shares of M.P. Polypropylene Ltd., Kappac Pharma Ltd., Kuwer Industries Ltd. and Secure Earth Technology Ltd. are not genuine and sham transactions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the short term capita loss ... gain genuine capital gain. iii) All these facts establish that only payment made through cheque is not an ultimate evidence to prove the genuineness of a transaction as proved in the un-famous "Satyam Computer" scandal wherein it was proved that the company had claimed salary in the names

Netlink Solutions (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

entered into by appellant of shares of M.P. Polypropylene Ltd., Kappac Pharma Ltd., Kuwer Industries Ltd. and Secure Earth Technology Ltd. are not genuine and sham transactions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the short term capita loss ... gain genuine capital gain. iii) All these facts establish that only payment made through cheque is not an ultimate evidence to prove the genuineness of a transaction as proved in the un-famous "Satyam Computer" scandal wherein it was proved that the company had claimed salary in the names

Joynet Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 868/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Joynet Developers Llp बिधम/ Pr. Cit Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, 101/B, Bellona, Pant Nagar, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar Tower No.6, Vashi Station East, Mumbai-400075. Complex, Vashi-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk0186D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hemant Shah Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(“Pcit”)- 27, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Pcit)”] In View Of The Provisions U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-27 Has Erred In Setting Aside The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Learned

crore However, no global report and client ledger was called for by the AO from the broker to verify the genuineness of the transactions and the genuineness of loss claimed. No details of margin money was called for. The bank statement of the assessee was not procured to verify ... crore However, no global report and client ledger was called for by the AO from the broker to verify the genuineness of the transactions and the genuineness of loss claimed. No details of margin money was called for. The bank statement of the assessee was not procured to verify

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Classic Creations Impex Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 4585/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Cc – 7(3), M/S Classic Creations Impex Pvt. Ltd. बिाम K-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tex Centre R. No. 655, Aaykar Bhavan M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Next To Hdfc Bank), Chandivali, / Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-3350-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir Singh – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 12/04/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 19/12/2016. The Sole Ground Urged By The Revenue Read As Under: - In The Circumstances & On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,23,50,000/- Made By The Ao As Unexplained Cash Credit Received From M/S. Emma Auto Ancillary Pvt. Ltd. In The Form Of Share

However, the assessee maintained that the primary onus as required u/s 68 to prove the identity of the share applicant, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions stood discharged by various documentary evidences viz. Copies of Income Tax return of share applicant, their financial statements, bank statement, copy ... merits, the assessee drew attention to the documentary evidences filed by it to establish identity of the investor entity, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. It was reiterated that it was the prerogative of Board of Directors to decide the premium amount and it would be the wisdom

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

requirements to prove the genuineness of the amount received towards the share application money and the premium, identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditor by filing relevant documents. Further the AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that the explanation ... assessee. In such a scenario, the primary requirements of Sec.68 i.e., to prove the identity of the subscribers, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were duly established by the assessee. Further, the Companies Act, 1956 do not put any limit on the quantum of premium which would be charged