ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchased the shares of RAFPL. However the AO for the purpose of making addition under section 56(2)(vii)(c) in the hands of the assessee has arrived the FMV of RAFPL at Rs.483 by considering the alleged bogus

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchased the shares of RAFPL. However the AO for the purpose of making addition under section 56(2)(vii)(c) in the hands of the assessee has arrived the FMV of RAFPL at Rs.483 by considering the alleged bogus

SHRI MOHD. ILYAS ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

vii)(b) being the difference in Stamp Duty Valuation and the purchase consideration paid, for the reason that though the assessee disputed valuation no reference was made to the Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer, when remand report was called for by the Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee furnished nearest sale instances as comparables even at that stage the Assessing

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

ASHUTOSH SINHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchase consideration paid by the assessee is liable to be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources.’. The ld. AO however, had also noted that as per the request of the assessee, reference was made to the DVO for the valuation of the property, however, the assessment was getting time barred on 31/03/2022 and the valuation report

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

SUJAUDDIN KASIMSAB SAYYED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sujauddian Kasimsab Income Tax Officer-2(2), 2Nd Sayyed A-5, 202, Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Vs. Vaishali Lok Nagri Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan- Chs Ltd. Midc Road, 421301. Ambernath (E)- 421501. Pan No. Axops1247C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh & Mr. D.G.Pansari, Drs Last Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2019

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by adopting the stamp duty value of the property as purchase consideration and the difference was assessed to tax. The Tribunal held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the agreement to sell dated 28.03.2013 has not been held to be bogus

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

56. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered by several\ndecisions of the coordinate benches in assessee's own case, and that is a fact\nnoted by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order itself as well. There is no\ngood reason, nor has any reason been pointed to us, to take a different view

SMT. PREMA MUKESH JHALANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2) , THANE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

bogus or invalid in law. He has also not denied the fact that the actual transfer of shares took place during AY 2010-11. Therefore, the taxability, if at all arises then the same could have been taxed only in AY 2010-11. Therefore, Ld. A.O. is not correct in simply rejecting the claim of the appellant and thereafter making

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

56. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered by several\ndecisions of the coordinate benches in assessee's own case, and that is a fact\nnoted by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order itself as well. There is no\ngood reason, nor has any reason been pointed to us, to take a different view

VORA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

bogus in nature, no such finding has been given in the hands of the assessee herein. Hence, we are of the view that the genuineness of payment of donations cannot be doubted in the instant case, particular in the absence of any material to support the view taken by the AO. Hence we agree with the contentions

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

56(2)(vii) of the act; and (d) eventually whole scheme of transfer of shares of UPL/UEL to NCPL and ultimately to the holding company constitutes a case of colourable device. In the process, CIT(A) rejected the assessee‟s claim of „transfer agreement‟ as „gift agreement‟ and eventually rejected to applicability of the provisions of section 47(iii) which

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. MODERN ROAD MAKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. "Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in taking only 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases as income and thus allowing 87.5% of such total amount of purchases as expenditure in contravention of the provisions of section 37 of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

MODERN ROAD MAKERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. "Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in taking only 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases as income and thus allowing 87.5% of such total amount of purchases as expenditure in contravention of the provisions of section 37 of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

NEELKAMAL REALTORS AND ERECTORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Neelkamal Realtors & Dcit -5(1), Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, 265-E, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -5(1), M/S Neelkamal Realtors & Aayakar Bhavan, Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Mumbai-400020 Vs. Floor, 265-E, Bellasis Road, Mimbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus bills. The information received from the DGIT(Inves) was confronted with the assessee. The assessee filed its reply. In the reply the assessee contended that from these four parties they had purchased material of Rs. 23,64,227/- only. The AO instead of discussing the reply of assessee disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.54