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

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

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

VODAFONE M-PESA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed"

Bench: Shri S. Rifaor Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1073/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act, which is mentioned in para no. 4.1 at page no. 15 to 30 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submission of assessee, Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee with regard to valuation of the shares based on fair market value on the basis of provisions

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

271(l)(c) of the Act. As the penalty proceedings are consequential to appellate order need not be adjudicated and hence this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 6, Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 29-04-2016 passed by learned CIT(A) , the Revenue has come in an appeal before

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

DCIT CC 2(4), MUMBAI vs. CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

viib) of Section 56(2) which is effective from 1st April. 2013 and not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, the following observations made by Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd.vs.Union of India 369 ITR 511 are useful: "41. We also find merit in the submission on behalf of the petitioners

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

M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

viib) of the Act. 3) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)) erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Id. Assessing Officer [AO] in making addition of Rs.4,93,50,000/-; being the amount of share premium u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. 4) Without prejudice to above

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arm ‘s length price after obtaining the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Mumbai. The appellant had invested USD 1,00,000 equivalent to Rs. 45,74,740 1 USD = Rs 45.74) in Hybrid Capital Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Hybrid Capital"), its wholly owned subsidiary in British Virgin

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

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

GLOBAL PPAYEMTNS AIS PACIFIC (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2007-08) Global Payments Asia Pacific (India) Vs. Dcit (Osd)-3(1), Mumbai Private Limited (Respondent) B-6 Block, 1St Floor, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Off Western Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan : Aaccg6055E (Appellant)

Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. Thus such capital account transaction not falling within a statutory exception cannot be brought to tax as already discussed herein above while considering the challenge to the grounds as mentioned in the impugned order. 39 In tax jurisprudence, it is well settled that following four factors are essential ingredients to a taxing statute

ITO 4(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. CINCOM TRADING P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

penalty u/s 271(1}(c) r.w. Explanation 1 is separately initiated for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income . 7. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). 8. The ld. CIT(A) elaborately reproduced the submissions of the assessee. He also admitted additional evidences pertaining to valuation report for the value of the shares. In doing

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