ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

business income and denied the standard\ndeduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.1,14,40,908/- without\nappreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross total\nincome determined at Rs.3,90,79,011/- as against returned income of Rs.\n2,68

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

business income and denied the standard\ndeduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.1,14,40,908/- without\nappreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross total\nincome determined at Rs.3,90,79,011/- as against returned income of Rs.\n2,68

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

business income and denied the standard\ndeduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.1,14,40,908/- without\nappreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross total\nincome determined at Rs.3,90,79,011/- as against returned income of Rs.\n2,68

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN STAR DIAMONDS ITERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

business income, the same is not taxable under any of the section referred above and accordingly section 115BBE has no application in case. 20. Furthermore, the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 read on Section 115BBE reads as under :- "under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, certain unexplained amounts are deemed as income under section 68

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. 'A' STAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

business income, the same is not taxable under any of the section referred above and accordingly section 115BBE has no application in case. 20. Furthermore, the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 read on Section 115BBE reads as under :- "under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, certain unexplained amounts are deemed as income under section 68

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

business income and denied the standard\ndeduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.1,14,40,908/- without\nappreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross total\nincome determined at Rs.3,90,79,011/- as against returned income of Rs.\n2,68

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

business in the hands of the assessees under section 28(iv) of the\nAct\".\nIn any case, we may point out that the amendment to section 68 of\nthe Act by the addition of proviso thereto took place with effect from\nApril 1, 2013. Therefore, it is not applicable for the subject\n assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

business loss against income declared during the course of survey/search. The provisions of section 115BE are applicable on the income taxable under section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

business loss against income declared during the course of survey/search. The provisions of section 115BE are applicable on the income taxable under section 68

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 143(3). The Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the Assessing Officer. 5 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 4. The Ld.CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee except for treatment of rent and interest ‘Income as income from other sources’ by Assessing Officer as against the treatment of the same as business income

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

business or profession', 'capital gains' and 'income from other sources'. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 Thus, any item of income must fall under one of these heads of income in order to be chargeable, and, also for the purpose of computation of 'total income'. If there is any income which falls outside these heads of income, there should be a separate charge

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

income of a separate entity, it will be erroneous not to exclude such income from the total income of the appellant.” 62. During the course of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Counsel that issues raised in the order of CIT are identical to grounds 2 & 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09. These issues

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

income of a separate entity, it will be erroneous not to exclude such income from the total income of the appellant.” 62. During the course of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Counsel that issues raised in the order of CIT are identical to grounds 2 & 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09. These issues

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.(O.S.D.) -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

income of a separate entity, it will be erroneous not to exclude such income from the total income of the appellant.” 62. During the course of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Counsel that issues raised in the order of CIT are identical to grounds 2 & 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09. These issues

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

income of a separate entity, it will be erroneous not to exclude such income from the total income of the appellant.” 62. During the course of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Counsel that issues raised in the order of CIT are identical to grounds 2 & 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09. These issues

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPLANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

income of a separate entity, it will be erroneous not to exclude such income from the total income of the appellant.” 62. During the course of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Counsel that issues raised in the order of CIT are identical to grounds 2 & 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09. These issues

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

business income by resorting\nto best judgment assessment - AO having\nrejected assessee's claim, made addition\nunder section 68 Tribunal

DCIT 29(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRTI RAMJI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3341/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-29(2) बिधम/ Kirti Ramji Kothari Room No.422, 4Th Floor, A/7, Maheh Krupa Devi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C. Dayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra (E), Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400080. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepk3216C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 14.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim That The Profit Of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- From F & O Trading Was To Be Assessed Either As Business Income Or Under Either Of The Heads Of Income A To F Of Section 14 Of The Lt. Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investigation & Analysis Of The A.Y.2015-16 Facts As Borne Out By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Clearly Establish That The Profit Was Bogus & Sham Earned Through Synchronized Trading In Illiquid Stock Option & Accordingly The Same Was Correctly Assessed U/S 68 Of The It Act.

68 of the IT Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing assesse’s claim that the profit of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- from F&O trading was to be assessed either as business income or under either of the heads of income A to F of section