MEGHJI MANSUKHLAL DODHIA,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

disallowance under section 69C and addition under\nsection 69D on account of alleged hundi loans were also involved.\nIt was submitted

AYYAPPA SEVA SAMGHAM BOMBAY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay-Trust Plot No.185, Shree Ayyappa Temple Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 104 Pan: Aaata0312K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A), 53 634, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

disallowing the deductions claimed by the appellant and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order u/s 143(3) made on 26 12 2019. 3. Without prejudice to the generality of the ground of appeal no 1 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Assessing Officer has erred in holding that

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of interest under section 69C, and the addition u/s. 69D of the Act on account of alleged Hundi loans

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of interest under section 69C, and the addition u/s. 69D of the Act on account of alleged Hundi loans

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowable on the ground that it was artificial and not business transaction dealt at great length on the terms 'expenditure" and 'loss' while touching upon the provisions of section 14A and section 94(7) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held 23 M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., that the two terms are conceptually different and cannot be used

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. RAHIL AGENCIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

disallowed claim of loss incurred on subsequent sale of undisclosed unaccounted diamonds found during course of search. The Assessing Officer also added gross profit estimated at 3.3% of sale of unaccounted diamond. In the appellate proceedings the learned CIT(A) deleted both the additions and hence the Revenue has filed this appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN STAR DIAMONDS ITERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowed. However, in the case of the appellant, the loss claimed for set off pertains to the current year wl1ich is eligible for set off against any head of income except salary income. 4.6. As regards the rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit, the appellant submitted that the seized loose paper show asking price

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. 'A' STAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

disallowed. However, in the case of the appellant, the loss claimed for set off pertains to the current year wl1ich is eligible for set off against any head of income except salary income. 4.6. As regards the rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit, the appellant submitted that the seized loose paper show asking price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREATIVE GEMS AND JEWELLERY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). As in the above ground No 1 to 3, it has been held that once the AO rejected the books of the appellant u/s 145 of the Act, the only option left was to estimate the profit and thus addition u/s 68 of the Act is also found not sustainable

CREATIVE GEMS AND JEWELLERY LIMITED,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). As in the above ground No 1 to 3, it has been held that once the AO rejected the books of the appellant u/s 145 of the Act, the only option left was to estimate the profit and thus addition u/s 68 of the Act is also found not sustainable

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Bhawan, M.K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd., 311, Mehta Bhawan, Shop No. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

disallowance in respect of alleged tainted purchases at an amount of Rs. 48, 77,030/- being 12.5% of the purchases of Rs. 3, 90, 16,241/- made by the Appellant alleged to be bogus by the Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that the purchases were genuine and evidenced by a plethora of documents and evidences. 2.2 Without prejudice

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 690, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

disallowance by the AO. Further from the ratio of above judgment of Honorable Supreme Court as well as of the Honorable Bombay High Court it is also clearly that once an appellant maintains kis own regular books of accounts and no such mention of expenses in Mac-book or bills are-- found in appellant's premises regularly assessed to Income

VINOD CHANDRU SHAHANI PROPRIETOR OF MAGCO CRANES,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vinod Chandru Shahani Proprietor Of Ito,Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai Magco Cranes Vs Range 169, Piramal Chamber, I.T. Peace Heaven A-34, Opp. Holy Officer, Lalbaug, Mumbai, Family Hospital, St. Andrews Road, Maharashtra – 400012. Greater Mumbai, Bandra West S.O. Maharashtra – 400050. [Pan No. Awyps0752P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowed for following issues, Learned Appeal Commissioner without served notices passed “X” Party Order and made addition on 2 issues as under, Vinod Chandru Shahani Proprietor of Magco Cranes A. Addition under section 69C as per para 3.6.2 Rs. 19,71,181/-. B. Addition under section 68 as per para 3.6.3 Rs. 13,18,000/-. Applicant Pray Honourable Court, Kindly

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Innovative Construction Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 12(2)(2) 1St Floor, Samir Complex Room No. 145, 1St Floor St. Andrews Road, Bandra (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400050 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaaci1573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh A. Thar Department By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

69D if these incomes are included in the income u/s. 115BBE of the Act, till the A.Y. 2016-17. 8. In the case on hand before us, the assessment year is 2013-14 and the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s. 69A of the Act and this disallowance which was treated as deemed income was not allowed

DEPUTY CIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

disallowance of common interest expenditure of Rs. 35,98,89,248/-. The A.O. has dealt with the issue at page No. 11 and 12. From the record we found that the assessee had claimed common interest expenditure of Rs. 48,82,67,263/- which has been apportioned to tonnage and non tonnage activity. The assessee allocated the said expenditure

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

disallowance is made\nof the claim of exemption of LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act by the\nld. AO.\n\n8. 6. 2. Taxable rate of 60% u/s 115BBE is stated to be applied\nby the ld. AO on the addition made. From the perusal of section\n115BBE, it is noted that the said section applies only when\ntotal

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

disallowing the claim on the basis of the following: i. By making a reference to section 1 of the Act which relates to Short title, extent and commencement of the Act and mentions that the Act extends to the whole of India. The AO's view is that the assessee cannot claim benefit of section 54 for purchase of residential