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, ()

exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount in question

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

68,736/- may be deleted and accepted as exempted may be deleted and accepted as exempted agricultural receipts. agricultural receipts. (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/ (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/- BEING EXPENDITURE ON BEING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT

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

68,736/- may be deleted and accepted as exempted may be deleted and accepted as exempted agricultural receipts. agricultural receipts. (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/ (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/- BEING EXPENDITURE ON BEING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seeth assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seetharamamma [1965) 57 aramamma [1965) 57 IT 532 at page 536). But, in view of Section 68

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seeth assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seetharamamma [1965) 57 aramamma [1965) 57 IT 532 at page 536). But, in view of Section 68

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

section 68 of the Act, the\nAssessee is required to explain the nature and also the source of\nthe credit appearing in its books. The explanation offered by the\nAssessee is, in his opinion is not satisfactory and therefore, the sum\nso credited may be charged to income tax, as the income of the\nAssessee of that previous year

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68,34,691, was deducted from exempt dividend income of ` 223,49,79,266 and on the balance amount of ` 11,81,44,575, the Assessing Officer allowed exemption under section

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 10(21) and that the AO has taken one possible view and has allowed the exemption to the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Association of Surgeons of India Vs. DDIT (Exemption)-1 (2017) 82 taxamann.com 68

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

68 to 69C would be applicable in addition to the computation of income under these sections. We, therefore, reject the argument of learned Departmental Representative that addition under section 69 for excess 15 Oberoi Foundation investment has to be independently carried out notwithstanding exemption

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68

DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TULIP HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

68,890/-. The assessee's assessment was completed u/s. 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 15.03.2014, assessing an income of 2 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Rs.61,16,28,856/-. The A.O. while completing the assessment made the following additions:- 1. Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act of Rs. 11,31,075/- 2. Non-acceptance of the assessee

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

The appeal stands dismissed

section 68 in respect of capital gain on sale of shares of M/s Finalysis Credit and Guarantee Ltd of Rs. 1,63,76,3217- and M/s Essar India Ltd of Rs. 4,06,13,865/- totaling Rs. 5,69,90,186/- which is declared as long term capital gain exempt

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

The appeal stands dismissed

section 68 in respect of capital gain on sale of shares of M/s Finalysis Credit and Guarantee Ltd of Rs. 1,63,76,3217- and M/s Essar India Ltd of Rs. 4,06,13,865/- totaling Rs. 5,69,90,186/- which is declared as long term capital gain exempt

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1 , THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. However, as discussed earlier, burden of proof lies on the assessee when it relates to cash credits u/s 68 and Section

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1, THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. However, as discussed earlier, burden of proof lies on the assessee when it relates to cash credits u/s 68 and Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of Jamshetji Tata Trust (Supra), the coordinate bench in the order

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of Jamshetji Tata Trust (Supra), the coordinate bench in the order