DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

260A(7) of the said Act, we frame the aforesaid additional substantial question of law which is involved in this appeal. 15. This appeal was taken up along with connected Tax Appeal Nos.4 to 8 of 2016 and Tax Appeal Nos.49 and 52 of 2016, in which the issue of pro-rata deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the said

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

260A(7) of the said Act, we frame the aforesaid additional substantial question of law which is involved in this appeal. 15. This appeal was taken up along with connected Tax Appeal Nos.4 to 8 of 2016 and Tax Appeal Nos.49 and 52 of 2016, in which the issue of pro-rata deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the said

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

260A(7) of the said Act, we frame the aforesaid additional substantial question of law which is involved in this appeal. 15. This appeal was taken up along with connected Tax Appeal Nos.4 to 8 of 2016 and Tax Appeal Nos.49 and 52 of 2016, in which the issue of pro-rata deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the said

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

260A(7) of the said Act, we frame the aforesaid additional substantial question of law which is involved in this appeal. 15. This appeal was taken up along with connected Tax Appeal Nos.4 to 8 of 2016 and Tax Appeal Nos.49 and 52 of 2016, in which the issue of pro-rata deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the said

DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE VALUE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2612/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ M/S Future Value Retail Tax (Osd), Range 8(1), Ltd., V. Room No. 260A, 2 Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Aayakar Bhavan, Shyam Nagar, M.K. Road, Off Jvlr, Mumbai 400 020. Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaecp3041P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

260A, 2 nd floor, Knowledge House, Aayakar Bhavan, Shyam Nagar, M.K. Road, Off JVLR, Mumbai 400 020. Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAECP3041P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by Shri G.M. Doss Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 12-01-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

260A of the Income Tax Act\nwould not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel\nappearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section\n147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT\nAppeals have not been

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

TDS. Plea was also raised that on the issue of commission, the Ld. Assessing Officer examined and allowed. It was fairly agreed by the Ld. counsel that both these issues were not discussed in the assessment order by the Ld. Assessing Officer but hastily 3 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. added that the assessment order was passed after examining

ACIT CC-3, THANE, THANE vs. PREMIER MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Premier Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-3, 3Rd Floor, D Wing Thane Vs Amerchand Mansion, 16 Madam Cama Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400039 (Pan : Aahcp1350N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi Advocate & Shri Pratik Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

TDS u/s 194C and claimed the expenses in their P & L a/c. vi. Vi The assessee's submission that their case is covered by Rule 6DD(k) as the contractor acted only as an agent was also not accepted by the AO as the assessee failed to substantiate the said claim. Since the payments having been made under section 194C

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S OM TRILOK REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE , MUMBAI

Bench: Shree Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Deputy Commissioner M/S Om Trilok Realty & Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Infrastructures, Shop No. 6Th Room No. 655, 8, Botawala Building, V Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 82086, Raghavji Road, S M. K. Road, Mumbai- Gowalia Tank, 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai-400036 Pan No. Aabfo8779M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta : Shri R A Dhyani, Cit-Dr Respondent By : 17.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 10.12.2025 Pronouncement

TDS has been deducted by the appellant on such loans. 8.11 Further, in the case of Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254] [Gau), the Hon'ble High Court had held that "A harmonious construction of section 106 of the Evidence Act and section 68 of the Income-tax Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

TDS deducted thereon, Affidavit of Shri Pradeep Poddar retracting the statement earlier made on 02.12.2014. ii. Statement of Shri Pradeep Poddar on whom the revenue has placed reliance upon was taken on 02.12.2014 and on very next day i.e. on 03.12.2014, Shri Padeep Poddar had filed a Police Complaint that his said statement was taken under duress and coercion

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

TDS deducted thereon, Affidavit of Shri Pradeep Poddar retracting the statement earlier made on 02.12.2014. ii. Statement of Shri Pradeep Poddar on whom the revenue has placed reliance upon was taken on 02.12.2014 and on very next day i.e. on 03.12.2014, Shri Padeep Poddar had filed a Police Complaint that his said statement was taken under duress and coercion

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

TDS deducted thereon, Affidavit of Shri Pradeep Poddar retracting the statement earlier made on 02.12.2014. ii. Statement of Shri Pradeep Poddar on whom the revenue has placed reliance upon was taken on 02.12.2014 and on very next day i.e. on 03.12.2014, Shri Padeep Poddar had filed a Police Complaint that his said statement was taken under duress and coercion

KONARK FIXTURES LTD( SUCCESSOR TO KALINGA FIXTURES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

260A of the Income Tax Act would\nnot at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out\nby the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT\nAppeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of\nthe Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the\nrecords. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

TDS on interest paid to M/s. Galore Supplier Pvt Ltd, M/s. Landmark Supplier Pvt ITA No. 6128/Mum/2019 & Co. No. 45/Mum/2021 Shri Majni Karmshi Patel, Mumbai. Ltd (amalgamated with S.K. Stock Dealers Pvt Ltd) & M/s. Kingfisher Properties Pvt Ltd as the appellant is not liable to get his books of accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Further, the Id. Assessing

ARJUN MANOJ PUROHIT,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), THANE, THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3654/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3655/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Arjun Manoj Purohit Ito, Ward-2(1) Room No. 25B, 6Th Arjun Niwas Padmavati Vs. Nagar, 150 Feet Road Floor, Asher It Park, Shyander (W), Thane- Road No. 16Z, Wagle 401105. Industrial Estate, Thane- 400604. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anxpp8321K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel 16 3655/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Arjun Manoj Purohit. appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification

ARJUN MANOJ PUROHIT,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), THANE, THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3654/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3655/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Arjun Manoj Purohit Ito, Ward-2(1) Room No. 25B, 6Th Arjun Niwas Padmavati Vs. Nagar, 150 Feet Road Floor, Asher It Park, Shyander (W), Thane- Road No. 16Z, Wagle 401105. Industrial Estate, Thane- 400604. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anxpp8321K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel 16 3655/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Arjun Manoj Purohit. appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271E

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA DEVELOPER PVT LTD), MUMBAI

260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271E

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO SHREENIVAS COTTON MILLS LTD), MUMBAI

260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression 'reasonable cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271E