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

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

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

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

SAGARMAL SOHANLAL JAIN,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(4), KALYAN

In the result, both the additions are directed to be deleted and the orders of the lower authorities are reversed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Sagarmal Sohanlal Jain, Ito Ward 3(4) Shop No.6, Omkar Society, It Ashar Park, Road No.16Z, M.G. Road, Opp. Railway Station, 6Th Floor, Waghale Estate, Vs. Dombivli (West), Thane, Thane, Mumbai-400604 Mumbai-421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aatpj4675K Assessee By : Shri N.A. Kulkarni, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

Section 69D of the Act and considered it to be deemed income of the assessee. 05. The second issue, it was found that the revision of return made by the assessee was to show the income under the Act income from house property

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, Business Income, Capital Gains and Income from other sources” as per limitations placed in section 70 to 79 of I.T. Act, 1961 only and not against any income which is charged/chargeable to tax under section 68 to 69D

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

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

house property. For the same, the assessee had authorized his father to withdraw cash at periodic intervals from his Bank Account with Central Bank of India A/c No. 1182615215 from February, 2016. Considering the security and other aspects, the assessee felt it prudent to withdraw the amount not at one Page No. | 6 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO go but over

DCIT ,CC- 8(4), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK R. RUIA (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Property Act for the impugned assessment year 1999- 2000. In order to make out such a case, the Assessing Officer has refused to look into the events, which followed after 31-3-1999. If the Assessing Officer read the entire episode as a whole, the Assessing Officer would know that there was no actual transfer of any capital asset from

SUHASIT STAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-15(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of\nthe Revenue are dismissed

69D, at the rate of 30%\n(plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any\nexpenditure or allowance. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1)\nof Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second\nAmendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f. 01.04.2017 i.e. AY 2017-18. Taxation\nLaws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 received the assent of the\nPresident of India only

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.6764/Mum/2010 vide order dated 30/10/2015(Mum Tribunal). x) Jawahar B. Purohit ITA No.7208/Mum/2013 vide order dated 20/09/2017(Mum Tri.). The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is blatantly wrong and against the facts on record as the CEO Shri Sanjay Kothari in his statement recorded under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

69D. In the absence of adequate material as to nature and ownership of transaction, undisclosed income cannot be assessed in hands of assessee merely by arithmetically totalling various figures jotted down p loose documents found during search. Bansal Strips (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT [2006] 99 ITD 177 (Del) • Addition on the basis of loose paper which cannot be treated

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

69D. In the absence of adequate material as to nature and ownership of transaction, undisclosed income cannot be assessed in hands of assessee merely by arithmetically totalling various figures jotted down p loose documents found during search. Bansal Strips (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT [2006] 99 ITD 177 (Del) • Addition on the basis of loose paper which cannot be treated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

properties, identification of potential investors and\nnegotiations with the investors, securing NOC's & occuрапсу\ncertificates for projects, SWOT analysis for product placement,\nDocumentation work, Design of foundations as per the soil\ninvestigation reports for infrastructure projects, etc. The\nassessee also claims that service/GST and TDS has been\ndeducted on the remittance made by the clients

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

properties, identification of potential investors and\nnegotiations with the investors, securing NOC's & occuрапсу\ncertificates for projects, SWOT analysis for product placement,\nDocumentation work, Design of foundations as per the soil\ninvestigation reports for infrastructure projects, etc. The\nassessee also claims that service/GST and TDS has been\ndeducted on the remittance made by the clients

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

69D of the Act. In a subsequent Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19.6.2019, the CBDT further provided a clarification that an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined u/s. 115BBE of the Act till the Asst Year 2016-17. (xiv) The ld AR further submitted that Section 112 of the Act which was inserted

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to such amount as it thinks fit not exceeding the amount of cost of attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under Rule 12. Once the AO has invoked the provisions of Section 131 of Page No. | 31 ITA NO. 1564& 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the IT Act, he will

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to such amount as it thinks fit not exceeding the amount of cost of attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under Rule 12. Once the AO has invoked the provisions of Section 131 of Page No. | 31 ITA NO. 1564& 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the IT Act, he will

ACIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, MUMBAI vs. LAYER EXPORTS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

House Branch, Mumbai 400 004 SUB - Plans sanctioned by Development Authorities 38 & 13 other appeals REF- Legend Building, Walkeshwar, Layer Exports Put. Ltd. Dear Sir, As you know we had put up proposed building plans for sanction with building planning department of M. C. G. M. for 3 size flats, based on 2.5 F. S. I. in our building "Legend