SHRIKANT FINCONSERY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals preferred by the Appellant are allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus/accommodation entries in respect of loan received from the following parties: S.No. Name of Entity Amount (INR) 1. Lunkad Textiles Pvt Ltd. 10,00,000/- 2. Victory Sales Pvt Ltd. 5,40,500/- 3. B.K. Dying and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd 30,00,000/- 7.2. It was contended by the Appellant that no fresh loans were received from above three

ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. VASHU BHAGNANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Vashu Bhagnani, Income Tax-25(3), Prop-M/S Pooja Vs. Mumbai Construction, Pooja House, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th 5Th Floor, Opp. J W Marriot, Floor, Pratyakshakar Juhu Tara Road, Bahvan (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ahupb2450L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh P. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2018

bogus/accommodation entries of unsecured loans. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, that a search and seizure operation was carried out in Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group on 03.10.2013, wherein it was found that Shri Jain along with his associates had provided accommodation

SWASTIK REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS was deducted , huge transaction of purchase and sale and assessments were completed. Thus, the judgment of Phoolwati Devi(supra) cannot be applied. Similarly it was submitted that the decision of CIT v. Durga Prasad More(1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and CIT v. Emarald Commercial Limited(2001) 250 ITR 539(Cal.HC) are distinguishable and not applicable. The learned counsel

SWASTIK REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS was deducted , huge transaction of purchase and sale and assessments were completed. Thus, the judgment of Phoolwati Devi(supra) cannot be applied. Similarly it was submitted that the decision of CIT v. Durga Prasad More(1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and CIT v. Emarald Commercial Limited(2001) 250 ITR 539(Cal.HC) are distinguishable and not applicable. The learned counsel