DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

survey proceedings has evidentiary value. In this regard, on perusal of the said decision, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had the following question before it: - (A) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in relying on the statement under Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

survey proceedings has evidentiary value. In this regard, on perusal of the said decision, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had the following question before it: - (A) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in relying on the statement under Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

survey proceedings has evidentiary value. In this regard, on perusal of the said decision, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had the following question before it: - (A) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in relying on the statement under Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath

TARUNA KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mrs. Taruna Kataria, The Ito-19(2)(2), 404, Bule Heaven, Nehru Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Acgpk 7391 G Appellant Respondent

gain but said presumption is not corroborated by any evidence corroborated by any evidences. 5.3 Fourthly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has he Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has he Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has neither been provided statement relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) nor neither been provided statement relied upon

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

capital gain on script M/s. Moryo Industries Ltd. (MIL) it was submitted that the assessee had purchased the 1,00,000 shares @25 per share through preferential allotment scheme from the company and he had paid Rs. 25.00,000- from its bank account on 16.10.2012 maintaining in ING Vysya bank by RTGS and said share allotted to assessee

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

survey operations U/sec 133A of the Act on the share brokers and has doubted the earning of long term capital gains on shares. Further the AO has issued the summons u/sec 131 of the Act on the assessee on 26.11.2008 and the statement was recorded. Further the AO find that there is no correlation of price rise and the financial

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI.50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession" of the previous year in which the asset is so used…” (iii) Based on the above, ld. AR argued that any disallowance under Section 35AD, if applicable, must be made in the year in which the asset is actually used for a business other than the specified business and not in the captioned year

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession" of the previous year in which the asset is so used…” (iii) Based on the above, ld. AR argued that any disallowance under Section 35AD, if applicable, must be made in the year in which the asset is actually used for a business other than the specified business and not in the captioned year

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession" of the previous year in which the asset is so used…” (iii) Based on the above, ld. AR argued that any disallowance under Section 35AD, if applicable, must be made in the year in which the asset is actually used for a business other than the specified business and not in the captioned year

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL)--50, MUMAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession" of the previous year in which the asset is so used…” (iii) Based on the above, ld. AR argued that any disallowance under Section 35AD, if applicable, must be made in the year in which the asset is actually used for a business other than the specified business and not in the captioned year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

Capital Gain/LTCG 47,67,57,836/- [claimed as exempt u/s 10(38)] 4. The AO in the assessment order has noted that the assessee is a part of the ‘Responsive Group’ on which survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) was conducted on 22.10.2019. In the course of survey, Mr. Rishabh Agarwal, the Director

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

Capital Gain/LTCG 47,67,57,836/- [claimed as exempt u/s 10(38)] 4. The AO in the assessment order has noted that the assessee is a part of the ‘Responsive Group’ on which survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) was conducted on 22.10.2019. In the course of survey, Mr. Rishabh Agarwal, the Director

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

u/s 131 on 10/01/2019 of Bhrt Pradeep Dhanuka, Director of Rupak Developers Private Limited, Romy Dhanuka, Director of Rupak Developers Private Limited, Romy Dhanuka, Director of Rupak Developers Private Limited, Romy Realty Private Limited, V R P Financial Pvt Ltd, please go Realty Private Limited, V R P Financial Pvt Ltd, please go Realty Private Limited, V R P Financial

NEETA RAJESH LODHA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

133A of Mr. Subrata Haldar, an associate of Mr. Bikash Sureka. And Mr Subrata Haldar, maintained clients Sauda books as well as back office work of BSAS Secuities Ltd and that he was director of BSAS Secuities which is a broking company in BSE & NSE. And Shri Subrata Haldar have admitted on 30.12.2014 that through his broking company M/s BSAS

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

survey action u/s 133A of the Act, was also carried out in case of the assessee group The statement of various key persons were recorded. AO has discussed the statement recorded of Shri Mahesh Idnani, Sr Vice President of M/s CMS Computers Limited. Based on such statement, it was alleged that the loss claimed by assessee group was not genuine

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. 2015 GROVER FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

survey action u/s 133A of the Act, was also carried out in case of the assessee group The statement of various key persons were recorded. AO has discussed the statement recorded of Shri Mahesh Idnani, Sr Vice President of M/s CMS Computers Limited. Based on such statement, it was alleged that the loss claimed by assessee group was not genuine

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle-4(4), 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400063. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-12(2)(1), Now Dy. 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Cit Central Circle-4(4), Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Mumbai-400063. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent

survey u/s. 133A for the assessment u/s. 153C is not permissible under 133A for the assessment u/s. 153C is not permissible under 133A for the assessment u/s. 153C is not permissible under law 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in Rs. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

KOMAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

survey is sufficient to endorse the bona fides of the share transactions made by the assessee.” 18. On further appeal, it is noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 has affirmed the order of this Tribunal. 19. The Ld. AR of the appellant has rightly relied