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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of the Act in case of investee is totally against the settled principle of law and hence the order passed is bad in law. 2.11 It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assesee that during the course of hearing before the AO, following documents were filed. For identity and genuineness  Financial Statements (attached as Annexure

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) ..

section 68. Hence, the proviso talks of the source being established only when the shareholder is a resident of India. There is no such requirement if shareholder is a non-resident. Therefore, the creditworthiness of the shareholders as per learned AR, if he is a non-resident, does not have to be established by the assessee in respect of remittance

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

permanent establishment or a fixed base in the other contracting state, the scheme of taxability on the gross basis, as implicit in the taxation of dividend, interest, royalties and fees for technical services, and other incomes, under the tax treaties, comes to an end. Article 11(5) specifically provides that the provisions of Article 12(1),(2) and (3) will

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

permanent establishment or a fixed base in the other contracting state, the scheme of taxability on the gross basis, as implicit in the taxation of dividend, interest, royalties and fees for technical services, and other incomes, under the tax treaties, comes to an end. Article 11(5) specifically provides that the provisions of Article 12(1),(2) and (3) will

THE ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

68 an Assessing Officer is free to show, with the help of the inquiry Mumbai Shelter Housing Development; A.Y. 2018-19 conducted by him into the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and the sub-creditor, that the transaction between the two were not genuine and that the sub-creditor had no creditworthiness, it will not necessarily mean

ITO 28 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAHLOT CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

68 an Assessing Officer is free to show, with the help of the inquiry conducted by him into the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and the sub- creditor, that the transaction between the two were not genuine and that the sub-creditor had no creditworthiness, it will not necessarily mean that the loan advanced

DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.4926 To 4928/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07 Abu Dhabi Commercial The Dcit (International बनाम/ Bank Ltd., Taxation)-1(1), Vs. 75B Rehmat Manzil, Scindia House, Veer Nariman Road, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 038 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3760/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Dcit (International Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank बनाम/ Taxation)-1(1), Ltd., Vs. Scindia House, 75B Rehmat Manzil, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Veer Nariman Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 C.O. No. 121/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 3760/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Abu Dhabi Commercial The Dcit (International बनाम/ Bank Ltd., Taxation)-1(1), Vs. 75B Rehmat Manzil, Scindia House, Veer Nariman Road, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Dhanesh Bafna अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Ms. Chandni Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By:

68. Now we shall deal with the contention of Shri Girish Dave seeking extension of the deeming fiction created in article 7(2) to treat the Permanent Establishment in India of the assessee bank as a separate and independent entity for the purpose of application of article 11 especially paragraph 2 thereof. It is relevant here to refer

ABU-DHABI COMMERICAL BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.4926 To 4928/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07 Abu Dhabi Commercial The Dcit (International बनाम/ Bank Ltd., Taxation)-1(1), Vs. 75B Rehmat Manzil, Scindia House, Veer Nariman Road, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 038 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3760/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Dcit (International Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank बनाम/ Taxation)-1(1), Ltd., Vs. Scindia House, 75B Rehmat Manzil, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Veer Nariman Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 C.O. No. 121/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 3760/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Abu Dhabi Commercial The Dcit (International बनाम/ Bank Ltd., Taxation)-1(1), Vs. 75B Rehmat Manzil, Scindia House, Veer Nariman Road, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Dhanesh Bafna अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Ms. Chandni Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By:

68. Now we shall deal with the contention of Shri Girish Dave seeking extension of the deeming fiction created in article 7(2) to treat the Permanent Establishment in India of the assessee bank as a separate and independent entity for the purpose of application of article 11 especially paragraph 2 thereof. It is relevant here to refer

ATOMSTROYEXPORT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE -1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment existed; (v) the mere signing of the contract pursuant to which the supply was made in India, in both cases does not result in giving rise to a tax liability in India; 23 Atomstroyexport (vi) the existence of the overall responsibility clause was held to be irrelevant in Ishkawajima's case and likewise the overall agreement executed

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

Permanent Establishment / alleged business connection in India. 2.2 The learned AO I DRP erred in disregarding the submissions made and the grounds of objections raised by the appellant. Ground No. 3: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act: 3.1 The learned AO has erred in law and in fact, in levying interest under section 234B

GARTNER IRELAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allo

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gartner Ireland Ltd., Dcit-2(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, 17Th Floor, 1711, Air India Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Ireland D02 Np94. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 2919 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farooq Irani Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

permanent establishment or fixed base is situated. 6. Where, by reason of a special or fixed base is situated. 6. Where, by reason of a special or fixed base is situated. 6. Where, by reason of a special relationship between the payer and the beneficial owner or between both of relationship between the payer and the beneficial owner or between

DCIT-13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SHUBHAM MOTIWALA & JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

section 68. One must not lose sight of the fact that it is the revenue which has all the powers and wherewithal to trace any person. Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the 'source of source' [Para 8] Therefore, in the instant case, no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BUSINESSMATCH SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, ITA number 2455/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 – 18 filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

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

Permanent Account Number (PAN), opening balance and subsequent repayment of the parties. The assessee also denied of having any connection with the accommodation entry providers. The assessee submitted that if there is any evidence available then assessee must be granted the details of such evidence as well as the opportunity to cross-examine such evidences. The assessee stated that

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BUSINESSMATCH SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ITA number 2455/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 – 18 filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

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

Permanent Account Number (PAN), opening balance and subsequent repayment of the parties. The assessee also denied of having any connection with the accommodation entry providers. The assessee submitted that if there is any evidence available then assessee must be granted the details of such evidence as well as the opportunity to cross-examine such evidences. The assessee stated that

ITO 12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEXT AVENUE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED(EARLIER KNOWN AS KBJ VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

establish three things necessary to obviate attraction of section 68 of the act such as identity, creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transaction which has been discharged by the assessee by submitting all the necessary documents during the course of appellate proceedings as well as remand proceedings. v. Due to the lockdown imposed in the state of Maharashtra

M/S. LIFELINE MEDICARE HOSPITALS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

establish three things necessary to obviate attraction of section 68 of the act such as identity, creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transaction which has been discharged by the assessee by submitting all the necessary documents during the course of appellate proceedings as well as remand proceedings. v. Due to the lockdown imposed in the state of Maharashtra

KEMOX CORPORATION,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee under\nconsideration are allowed as per terms set out in each appeal's order

section 68, namely, identity of\nthe creditors, their financial capacity to advance loans, and the\ngenuineness of the transactions. Specifically, the assessee\nfurnished the Permanent Account Numbers of the lender\ncompanies, their certificates of incorporation, acknowledgements\nof income tax returns, and documents downloaded from the\nMinistry of Corporate Affairs portal evidencing that the companies\ncontinued to hold the status

SAPTARSHI REALTORS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 8 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Aaykar Bhavan, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Paral Village, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6828M Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Paral Village, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Advocate Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024

establish identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the above transaction, which the assessee failed in the assessment proceedings. Before CIT – A assessee has submitted additional evidences, which were sent back to AO, who examine them and held that assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness with respect to these credits. He submits that in most of the cases the income