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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

addition of share capital and share application money in the hands of the assessee as income under section 28(iv) of the Act. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did consider the issue of applicability of section 68

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition of Rs 7,95,96,83,862 under Section 68 of the Act. 2.30 It is evident from a bare reading of Section 68 that the section seeks to tax sums found credited in the books of accounts of an assessee which satisfy the following conditions: - Where the assessee does not offer any explanation regarding the nature and source

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

additions to the appellant's income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying provisions relating to "Source

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

additions to the appellant's income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying provisions relating to "Source

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

Income-tax, Central Circle 40, tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making an addition under section 68

SYNTENSIA NETWORK SECURITY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

addition. The taxing authority can act only if there is power under the statute to do so. It further held that if the liabilities are old representing opening balances only, Section 68 cannot be applied. 6. [2008) 21 SOT 22 (DELHIUURO) SURAJ BHAN BAJAJ vs. ITO Section 68 of the Income