ITO TDS 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND HOMI KERMANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Tds 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aappk3340Q Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Shri R.K. Kotain (Ar)

TDS 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1st Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. AAPPK3340Q Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Respondent by Shri R.K. Kotain (AR) सुनवाई क" तार

ACIT, CIR.- 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ABHAY RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F mandates that hole of sale consideration has to be invested in new residential house and amount not so invested has to be invested in specified assets. We find that the similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Mustansir I Tehsilder vs. ITO in ITA No.6108/M/2017 wherein the Tribunal has held as under

ABHAY R. AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Abhay R. Aggarwal, The Commissioner Of Flat No.15, Vijay Mahal, Income Tax (Appeals)-28, D Road, Vs. Mumbai Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaapa7909A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajen J. Damani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018 O R D E R

54F mandates that hole of sale consideration has to be invested in new residential house and amount not so invested has to be invested in specified assets. We find that the similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Mustansir I Tehsilder vs. ITO in ITA No.6108/M/2017 wherein the Tribunal has held as under: “10. Section

KRISHNAGOPAL TILAKRAJ KAPOOR,GHATKOPAR EAST vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GRANT ROAD

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed as above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Krishnagopal Tilakraj Kapoor Acit 14(2)(1) Flat No. 13, Plot No. 353 Matru Mandir Triveni Building, Vallabh Vs. Building Baugh Exten. Lane Grant Road Ghatkopar East Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 077. 007. Pan : Aahpk0342G Appellant Respondent

54F of appellant as no particulars were filed. Since this issue was not examined by Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A), the same is remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh examination. The AO is directed to give an opportunity to the appellant and pass an order accordingly to law. 10. The next ground of appeal relates to addition

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

TDS deducted (by the builder) on the interest payable against their “Loans & Advances” is claimed as refund. 4.7 A perusal of all the 70 benami concerns managed and controlled by Bhanwarlal Jain Group show that all of them have the same features mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This shows that all the 70 concerns are not into any genuine business

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

TDS deducted (by the builder) on the interest payable against their “Loans & Advances” is claimed as refund. 4.7 A perusal of all the 70 benami concerns managed and controlled by Bhanwarlal Jain Group show that all of them have the same features mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This shows that all the 70 concerns are not into any genuine business

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

TDS deducted (by the builder) on the interest payable against their “Loans & Advances” is claimed as refund. 4.7 A perusal of all the 70 benami concerns managed and controlled by Bhanwarlal Jain Group show that all of them have the same features mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This shows that all the 70 concerns are not into any genuine business

JITENDRA M KITAVAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

TDS have been deducted and paid and form no.16A issued to the loan creditors also filed before the AO. Once the assessee has filed all and other three appeals the necessary documents before the AO then the onus is shifted to the department to disprove the stand of the assessee, which department has failed to do so in the present

ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA MADANLAL KITAWAT (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

TDS have been deducted and paid and form no.16A issued to the loan creditors also filed before the AO. Once the assessee has filed all and other three appeals the necessary documents before the AO then the onus is shifted to the department to disprove the stand of the assessee, which department has failed to do so in the present

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS have been deducted and paid and form no.16A issued to the loan creditors also filed before the AO. Once the assessee has filed all 10 and other three appeals the necessary documents before the AO then the onus is shifted to the department to disprove the stand of the assessee, which department has failed

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS have been deducted and paid and form no.16A issued to the loan creditors also filed before the AO. Once the assessee has filed all 10 and other three appeals the necessary documents before the AO then the onus is shifted to the department to disprove the stand of the assessee, which department has failed

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS have been deducted and paid and form no.16A issued to the loan creditors also filed before the AO. Once the assessee has filed all 10 and other three appeals the necessary documents before the AO then the onus is shifted to the department to disprove the stand of the assessee, which department has failed

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS have been deducted and paid and form no.16A issued to the loan creditors also filed before the AO. Once the assessee has filed all 10 and other three appeals the necessary documents before the AO then the onus is shifted to the department to disprove the stand of the assessee, which department has failed

ACIT CIR 1, THANE vs. HANMANT D. JAGDALE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue has no force and the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit Circle-1, Shri Hanmant D. Jagdale, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Prop. M/S Rohit Enterprises, ‘B’ Wing, Room No. 22, Gr. Floor, Tamanna Chs, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Vs. Pada No. 2, Yashodhan Nagar, Estate, Thane (W),-400604. Lokmanya Nagar, Thane (W)-400606. Pan: Acnpj7172P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253of Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is directed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-II, Thane dated 15.02.2013 for AY 2008-09. The Revenue has raised only one ground of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim of exemption

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS was given at Nil in respect of the sale of immovable property of the assessee (l.e. Flat No. 202, 2nd floor, Vasundhara, Janki Kutir, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai-400 049). A copy of the same was also marked to the assessee with a direction that she is required to file her return of income

VARUN RASIKLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

TDS thereof. Further the same was\nmentioned as SFT transactions in form 26AS (Part E) for the year under\nreview. We hereby state that the form 26AS was submitted during the\ncourse of assessment proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n& at the time of appellate proceedings u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JINENDRA MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

54F to the tune of Rs. 38,78,129/- and net LTCG of Rs. 57,352/- was offered to tax. The AO called on the assessee to furnish details pertaining to the LTCG. The assessee submitted the valuation report as on 31.03.2001 in support of the cost of acquisition and the invoices pertaining to the sale of jewelry. After perusing

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

TDS was deducted therefore the payments cannot be treated as brokerage income of the Assessee. The Assessee also claimed that the AO was orally requested to allow the Assessee to cross examine the Directors of VIPL or VPPL. However, the AO, without giving any opportunity to the Assessee to cross-examination has made the said addition. The Assessee before