ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(viib) in the light of the above factual\nbackground and held that the assessee failed to justify issuance of\nshares at such high premium. Accordingly, the total sum of\n9,60,00,000/- received by the assessee as share premium was\ndisallowed and added u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. He also\nsimultaneously initiated penalty proceedings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(viib) in the light of the above factual\nbackground and held that the assessee failed to justify issuance of\nshares at such high premium. Accordingly, the total sum of\n9,60,00,000/- received by the assessee as share premium was\ndisallowed and added u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. He also\nsimultaneously initiated penalty proceedings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(viib) in the light of the above factual\nbackground and held that the assessee failed to justify issuance of\nshares at such high premium. Accordingly, the total sum of\n9,60,00,000/- received by the assessee as share premium was\ndisallowed and added u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. He also\nsimultaneously initiated penalty proceedings

DCIT 3(2)92) , MUMBAI vs. M/S PNP MARTITIME SERVICES PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts by confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final date

PNP MARITIME SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts by confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final date

LALITA NARENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

viib) addition of Rs.35.38 lakhs is concerned. This amount admittedly represents the difference between actual purchase consideration and stamp value of the corresponding capital asset jointly acquired at the assessee’s behest in the relevant previous year. Learned Assessing Officer invoked the impugned statutory provision thereby treating the said differential sum as assessee’s income from “other” sources which

VIDYA BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA are noted by the ld. CIT(A), however no specific adjudication to such contention of the assessee was offered in the appellate order, therefore such issue remain unaddressed by the ld. CIT(A). Further, to examine the issue leading to addition u/s 68 of the Act, some investigation and verification would be required. Under

VIDYA BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8 (3) (3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA are noted by the ld. CIT(A), however no specific adjudication to such contention of the assessee was offered in the appellate order, therefore such issue remain unaddressed by the ld. CIT(A). Further, to examine the issue leading to addition u/s 68 of the Act, some investigation and verification would be required. Under

LEADING AGE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. Leading Age Developers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2011-12 3. We first take up appeal in ITA No.1113/Mum/2024. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate. Assessee filed its return of income on 20.09.2011 reporting a total income as loss

LEADING AGE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CENTRAL BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. Leading Age Developers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2011-12 3. We first take up appeal in ITA No.1113/Mum/2024. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate. Assessee filed its return of income on 20.09.2011 reporting a total income as loss

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 40(a)(ia)\n1062,271\n10,62,271\n-216,94,319\nAdd: Disallowable amount debited to P&L A/c u/s 43B\na. Dr. P&L u/s 43B-Sum in the nature of Tax, duty et\nb. Sum to an employee as Bonus/Commission\nc. Sum towards Leave encashment\n3,136\n13504,040\n4682,259\n181

DCIT CC -2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(3) V. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not have any legs to stand and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and this deletion do not call for any interference. Therefore, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed. 7. Coming to the CO No. 63/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) the assessee

DCIT CC -2(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH BHOSALE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., PUNE

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(3) V. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not have any legs to stand and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and this deletion do not call for any interference. Therefore, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed. 7. Coming to the CO No. 63/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) the assessee

DCIT CC -2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(3) V. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not have any legs to stand and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and this deletion do not call for any interference. Therefore, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed. 7. Coming to the CO No. 63/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) the assessee

DCIT CC-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(3) V. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not have any legs to stand and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and this deletion do not call for any interference. Therefore, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed. 7. Coming to the CO No. 63/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) the assessee