DCIT 29(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRTI RAMJI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3341/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-29(2) बिधम/ Kirti Ramji Kothari Room No.422, 4Th Floor, A/7, Maheh Krupa Devi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C. Dayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra (E), Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400080. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepk3216C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 14.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim That The Profit Of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- From F & O Trading Was To Be Assessed Either As Business Income Or Under Either Of The Heads Of Income A To F Of Section 14 Of The Lt. Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investigation & Analysis Of The A.Y.2015-16 Facts As Borne Out By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Clearly Establish That The Profit Was Bogus & Sham Earned Through Synchronized Trading In Illiquid Stock Option & Accordingly The Same Was Correctly Assessed U/S 68 Of The It Act.

house property. The assessee showed the net profit of Rs.5,75,40,478.00/- from F & O transaction through the Broker M/s. MKB Securities. The transaction was not found genuine the same was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee also claimed the expenditure to the tune of Rs.14,38,512/- which

RITESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

house property (iv) (iv) Unverified Unverified and and non-genuine non genuine expenses expenses – ₹62,505/- (v) (v) (v) Interest Interest Interest on on on refund refund refund not not not offered offered offered – ₹1,461/- (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A – ₹10,000/- Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal 2.3 In appeal

AILA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

69B without giving any finding as to how the said Sections were applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case. 4) Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring decisions of the High Courts led before them. 5) Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the fact that under a Family Settlement, there is no transfer of property. 6) Having

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

Section 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of facts is not there. facts is not there. Hence to form an opinion that

SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

Section 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of 69B can be invoked. In the appellant's case I find such a situation of facts is not there. facts is not there. Hence to form an opinion that

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) ..

House Property' are clearly not applicable in the present case. In my view, the most appropriate head is 'Profits and Gains of business'. In that case the loss can be set off under section 70(1) of the Act. Even if the unaccounted investment is assessed under 'income from other sources' the loss will be set off under section

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) ..

House Property' are clearly not applicable in the present case. In my view, the most appropriate head is 'Profits and Gains of business'. In that case the loss can be set off under section 70(1) of the Act. Even if the unaccounted investment is assessed under 'income from other sources' the loss will be set off under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property - Rs.4.36 crores. Capital Gains - Rs.29.78 crores and Income from Other Sources Rs.35,79 crores, thereby resulting in Total Loss of Rs.2.249.51 crores which comprises of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Rs. 1.316.80 crores and Unabsorbed Business Loss- Rs.9.32.71 crores; which is carried forward for set-off" against Other Income / Business Profits in future. In the assessment order dated 27.02.2017 the same

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 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 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

house at Beau Monde, Prabhadevi for Rs.20,63,72,233/-. Appellant had claimed 16 I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 a deduction of 54F from the sale consideration received from the sale of commercial and residential property. However, AO had denied appellant's claim u/s 54F on sale of commercial property on observing that as appellant had claimed depreciation for commercial property, hence section

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)

House Property - Rs.4.83 crores, Capital Gains - Ks.43.92 crores and Income from Other Sources Rs.1,494.21 15 I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 Tata Motors Ltd crores, thereby resulting in Total Loss of Rs.3,939.43 crores which comprises of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Rs.1,424.18 crores and Unabsorbed Business Loss -Rs. 2,215. 26 crores; which is carried forward for set-off against Other Income / Business

VIJAY M. HARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vijay M. Haria Income Tax Officer-13(3)(21) 502, Sharda Chambers No.2 Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Vs. Bhat Bazar, Masjid Bunder Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400003 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabph1129C Appellant Respondent

house property against “Income from section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of I.T. Act, 1961” but mention about

SYNCHEM CHEMICALS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property.” 6. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of notional interest on interest free deposit received by the assessee on Ankleswar factory and Santacruz property.” 7.1. “On the facts and circumstance so the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed

MOUNT VIEW CLUB & RESORTS P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.1358 To 1360 & 1362/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07 M/S. Mount View Club & The Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 5353M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Prakash Pandit Shri Asghar Zain Vp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

house property” as against “Income from business” reported for the assessee. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer by letter dated 23.2.2007 referred the valuation of cost of construction of assessee’s property at village Vinegaon, Raigad District for valuation and obtained valuation report on 21.8.2008 after completion of assessment on 17.12.2007. Subsequently

JUGESH SHOBHNATH YADAV,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Omkareshwar Chidara

Housing Society Sarvoday Nagar, Jogeshwari, Mumbai-400 060 PAN: ABXPY2016L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vipul Shah / Akshay Shah Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR) Date of hearing : 03/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04/03/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant appeals of the assessee were filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

JUGESH SHOBHNATH YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FACELESS PENALTY INDIA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Omkareshwar Chidara

Housing Society Sarvoday Nagar, Jogeshwari, Mumbai-400 060 PAN: ABXPY2016L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vipul Shah / Akshay Shah Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR) Date of hearing : 03/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04/03/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant appeals of the assessee were filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

SATYAPAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CETRAL CIRCLE - 39, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

House Property’. The appellant prays that the said addition is unjustified and requires to be upheld. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 64,60,000/- on account of alleged undisclosed investments in Alibaug land u/s 69B

SATYAPAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CETRAL CIRCLE - 39, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

House Property’. The appellant prays that the said addition is unjustified and requires to be upheld. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 64,60,000/- on account of alleged undisclosed investments in Alibaug land u/s 69B

VINOD GARG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 18 & 19, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2249/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Vinod Garg, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O M/S Loya Bagri & Co., Income Tax – Central Cir V. Chartered Accountants, 18 & 19, Gandhibag, Mumbai. Nagpur – 440 002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abopg 6195 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 69B of the 1961 Act. The AO brought to tax the unexplained jewellery worth Rs. 42,00,656/- which was seized by Revenue during the course of search and seizure operations u/s ITA No. 2249/Mum/2015 & 8 132(1) of 1961 Act as income of the assessee u/s 69B of 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2013 passed

ASST CIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VINOD RAMNIWAS GARG, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2249/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Vinod Garg, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O M/S Loya Bagri & Co., Income Tax – Central Cir V. Chartered Accountants, 18 & 19, Gandhibag, Mumbai. Nagpur – 440 002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abopg 6195 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 69B of the 1961 Act. The AO brought to tax the unexplained jewellery worth Rs. 42,00,656/- which was seized by Revenue during the course of search and seizure operations u/s ITA No. 2249/Mum/2015 & 8 132(1) of 1961 Act as income of the assessee u/s 69B of 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2013 passed