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

viib)\non account\nof share\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\npremium\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nDepartment\nCO\n10,00,00,000/-Assessee\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

reassessment order:\n6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the mistake on the part of the\nLd. AO in quoting section 56(2)(viib

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

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nDepartment\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

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

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nDepartment\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\nCO\nAssessee\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

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

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/- 45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\nDepartment\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

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

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nDepartment\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

M/S. DOIT CREATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdoit Creations (India) Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax, Central 307 & 308, 3Rd Floor,, Circle 3, Room No. 1901, Midas, Sahar Plaza, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd8695A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit(Central), Mumbai -3, Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Central - 3 (Herein After Referred As 'Pcit) Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As 'The Act') By Issuing The Notice Inspite Of The Fact That Assessment U/S. 143(3) & U/S 143(3) R.Ws 147 Of The Act Has Been Completed After Due Examination & Application Of Mind While Framing The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) & U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The Act. Further Order U/S 263 Is Also Passed Merely Setting Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Learned Assessing Officer To Conduct Proper Inquiry Which Is Unjustified. It Is Therefore Submitted That The Order Passed U/S 263 Should Be Cancelled.

section 56(2) (viib) of the Act and has discussed Rule 11UA(2) of the Act in the 263 notice. In this regard we state that valuation has been done considering the valuation rules of the Act and the same is also accepted by the Assessing officer at the respective assessment proceedings. 5.5.2 Further your honour at para (vi) erred

M/S. PARVESH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act,\n1961; whereas no addition was made in the reassessment order u/s\n56(2)(viib). The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Limited, ITA no.\n1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar

AVINASH CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 2(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleavinashbhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 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) Avinash Constructions V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 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: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131 of the Act to M/s. Varali Infrastructure Limited to inquire about the basis of valuation and other details such as source of fund. M/s Varali Infrastructure Limited, in response submitted the source of payment for subscribing to the shares 5 ITA NO. 1307& 1797/MUM/2021) AvinashBhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Avinash Constructions of assessee. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with

AVINASH BHOSALE INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleavinashbhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 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) Avinash Constructions V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 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: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131 of the Act to M/s. Varali Infrastructure Limited to inquire about the basis of valuation and other details such as source of fund. M/s Varali Infrastructure Limited, in response submitted the source of payment for subscribing to the shares 5 ITA NO. 1307& 1797/MUM/2021) AvinashBhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Avinash Constructions of assessee. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with

FIRDOS SHAHNAWAZUDDIN SIDDIQUI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

56(2)(viib) of the Act as the payment (or part payment) has to be made in any mode other than cash; 8. Erred in holding that the Appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove that the possession of the impugned property was taken by the Appellant in 2010, whereas, the Appellant had submitted a notarized affidavit

GATEGROUP INVESTMENTS SINGAPORE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. INT TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

56(2) (viib) r.w.r. 11UA of the Rules. 6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon’ble DRP has erred in relying upon DCF valuation modified during the assessment proceedings of MALSP and referred to the learned AO of the Appellant. 7. On the facts and circumstances

ACRON HOSPITALIY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

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

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. We therefore hold that the issue\npertaining to the limited scrutiny and the issue in the revisionary proceedings are not\none and the same. The ld. AO cannot go beyond the reasons for which the scrutiny\nproceeding was initiated in a limited scrutiny, unless he converts the same to a complete\nscrutiny. There

ACADEMY FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 6911 or the value of any bullion, jewellery or oilier valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 6911 or fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required

ITO-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SETHIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

reassessment order made under Section 34(2) was served on the assessee. 12. It may be seen, therefore, that, if an authority is authorised to exercise a power or do an act affecting the rights of parties, he shall exercise that power within the period of limitation prescribed therefore. The order or decision of such authority comes into force

DCIT - CC- 6(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTEND PROPMART PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Accepting the contention of the Assessee that the 4 ITA. No. 1430/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 reassessment

DEVANAND AMARNATH PARKAR,JOGESHWARI EAST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(4)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149(1)(b)", "56(2)(viib)", "151" ], "issues

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 56[2] [viib] c. By ignoring evidences produced” 3. In the present appeal, essentially the issue to be decided is on legal ground, challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 on account of being barred by limitation and consequent reassessment

M/S. WESCON FINANCE & LEASING PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 56(2)(viib) and the corresponding Rule 11UA relied upon by the AO, came into the Act only 6 AY 2010-11 Wescon Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. from the Finance Act, 2012 and were made prospectively applicable from AY 2013-14 and onwards. Further, even under the aforesaid provision, addition, if any, was to be made in the hands