DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS cannot be sole criteria for genuineness. The AO also held that the aforesaid 3 entities have not made any compliance to notice issued under section 133(6

DCIT 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS MATCH SERVICES (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

section 133(6) of the Act to 19 parties calling upon the lenders to file various details such as copies of ITRs for three years, ledger accounts, bank statements, TDS

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

6 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on legality

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

6 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on legality

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

6 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on legality

DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

TDS on the interest paid. 5.2.3 During the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued noti Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6

DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

TDS on the interest paid. 5.2.3 During the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued noti Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6

SONICWALL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee provided PAN numbers, TDS details, bank account details, and complete address of these parties to the AO, as was available with it. However, the assessee itself was not able to contact these parties to persuade them to file a response to the notice issued under section 133

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SPAN VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

133(6) of the LT. Act, the appellant contacted these parties and the parties filed confirmation of the loan alongwith, requisite 5 ITA No.4446/M/2017 & ITA No.4447/M/2017 M/s. Span Venture documentary evidence before the AO directly. This fact has not been denied by the AO. He has simply observed that filing of the reply directly by the creditors had been managed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.MORE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

133(6) of the Act and however, Assessing Officer did not give any show cause notice and information about non-compliance from these parties to the assessee. However, assessee has filed following additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(A). a. Copies of acknowledgement of ITR filed by the lenders. b. Bank statement highlighting loan received/repayment. 6 ITA NOs. 4150 & 4162/MUM/2018

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.MORE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

133(6) of the Act and however, Assessing Officer did not give any show cause notice and information about non-compliance from these parties to the assessee. However, assessee has filed following additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(A). a. Copies of acknowledgement of ITR filed by the lenders. b. Bank statement highlighting loan received/repayment. 6 ITA NOs. 4150 & 4162/MUM/2018

KHERESH ABHAY CHHEDA,THANE vs. ACIT, CIR-1, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Smt. Padmavathi S. ()

TDS and turnover related issues. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings issued notice under section 133(6

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. K K VENTURA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands\ndismissed

133(6) were issued to the\nlenders, and though some responded, their replies were, in\nthe view of the Assessing Officer, inadequate to establish\neither creditworthiness or genuineness. He accordingly\nidentified twenty-one lenders, aggregating to ₹8,43,50,000/-,\nwhose loans were treated as unexplained and brought to tax\nunder section 68 of the Act.\nName of the Loan

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1, THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES , THANE

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

133(6) of the Act to 73 parties out of 127 parties and the AO himself acknowledges that 34 parties were served notices and out of them 23 parties replied by filing the requisitioned documents directlyto the AO. The AO also admits that out of 11 parties to whom summons under section 131 were issued, 8 parties filed replies