DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

addition under section 68 of the act was made by the learned assessing officer under ITA No. 2371, 2373-77 & 2067/MUM/2023 Bhisma Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys.14-15 to 18-19 & 21-22 section 68 of the income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

addition under section 68 of the act was made by the learned assessing officer under ITA No. 2371, 2373-77 & 2067/MUM/2023 Bhisma Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys.14-15 to 18-19 & 21-22 section 68 of the income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

addition under section 68 of the act was made by the learned assessing officer under ITA No. 2371, 2373-77 & 2067/MUM/2023 Bhisma Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys.14-15 to 18-19 & 21-22 section 68 of the income

BHISHMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

addition under section 68 of the act was made by the learned assessing officer under ITA No. 2371, 2373-77 & 2067/MUM/2023 Bhisma Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys.14-15 to 18-19 & 21-22 section 68 of the income

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

addition made is required to be deleted\n3. On the facts of the appellant's case and under the law the\naddition made under section 68 of the Income

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Income Tax Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, were not applicable to AY 2009-10. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to adduce contrary material to counter the assessee's evidence.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 68", "Section 147", "Section 2(24)", "Section 56(2)(viib)", "Section 106" ], "issues": "Whether the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for\n

income. The assessee appealed these additions.", "held": "The Tribunal considered various grounds related to additions made under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

addition on account of LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 44. Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal in case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10(38) of the Income

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

addition on account of LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 44. Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal in case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10(38) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for\n

addition\nof unexplained income under section 68 of the act of 101,445,908/- and\nunexplained expenditure under section 69C of the act of ₹ 288 lakhs

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

addition under section 68. The requirement of section 68 are as follows:- Section 68 considers any sum credited in the books of taxpayer in any financial year and not already offered to tax, as income

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

additions under section 68 to income accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income accordingly, made additions under section 68

DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

additions under section 68 to income accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income accordingly, made additions under section 68

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

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

income of\nthe assessee by considering the nature of business of the assessee. After\nconsidering various factors as noted in paragraph 7.1(7.43) of its order, the\nlearned CIT(A) held that there is culpability on the part of the assessee but\nnothing to warrant addition under section 68

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

income of\nthe assessee by considering the nature of business of the assessee. After\nconsidering various factors as noted in paragraph 7.1(7.43) of its order, the\nlearned CIT(A) held that there is culpability on the part of the assessee but\nnothing to warrant addition under section 68

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

income of\nthe assessee by considering the nature of business of the assessee. After\nconsidering various factors as noted in paragraph 7.1(7.43) of its order, the\nlearned CIT(A) held that there is culpability on the part of the assessee but\nnothing to warrant addition under section 68

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

income by treating the same as bogus, addition of commission on capital gain, addition under section 68 of loans, addition

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

income by treating the same as bogus, addition of commission on capital gain, addition under section 68 of loans, addition