ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68,97,076\n8,23,05,575\n37,84,72,668\n47,76,75,319\nExempt u/s\n10(35)\n10(34)\n10(23FB)\n4. The case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny\nthrough CASS and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer\nunder section 143(3) on 30.12.2018 after due enquiry and accepting\nthe returned income

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 of income under sections 11 to 13. 21. Now, we come

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 B of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 2943/M/2008 wherein the order of the learned CIT – A is in appeal for assessment year 2001 – 02. As the issue is the same, we follow our own decision for assessment year 2001 – 02 in above ITA, dismiss

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 B of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 2943/M/2008 wherein the order of the learned CIT – A is in appeal for assessment year 2001 – 02. As the issue is the same, we follow our own decision for assessment year 2001 – 02 in above ITA, dismiss

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 B of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 2943/M/2008 wherein the order of the learned CIT – A is in appeal for assessment year 2001 – 02. As the issue is the same, we follow our own decision for assessment year 2001 – 02 in above ITA, dismiss

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 B of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 2943/M/2008 wherein the order of the learned CIT – A is in appeal for assessment year 2001 – 02. As the issue is the same, we follow our own decision for assessment year 2001 – 02 in above ITA, dismiss

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 B of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 2943/M/2008 wherein the order of the learned CIT – A is in appeal for assessment year 2001 – 02. As the issue is the same, we follow our own decision for assessment year 2001 – 02 in above ITA, dismiss

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 B of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 2943/M/2008 wherein the order of the learned CIT – A is in appeal for assessment year 2001 – 02. As the issue is the same, we follow our own decision for assessment year 2001 – 02 in above ITA, dismiss

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 B of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 2943/M/2008 wherein the order of the learned CIT – A is in appeal for assessment year 2001 – 02. As the issue is the same, we follow our own decision for assessment year 2001 – 02 in above ITA, dismiss

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 stipulates that any unexplained sum found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, then the same may be taxed as income of the assessee for that previous year. Thus, section 69 of I.T. Act can only be invoked if the transaction has been taken in the relevant previous year for which assessment is being

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 is not apply to remittances made in India by non-resident is strengthened by the proviso to u/s.68 inserted w.e.f. asst. yr. 2013-14. According to the said proviso, if an assessee company, in which public are not substantially interested, receives money by way of share capital, then the source of funds of resident shareholder

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

20,68,736/– on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having earned earned agricultural

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

20,68,736/– on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having earned earned agricultural

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)

section 68 of the Act. 19. The Ld. A.O. did not appreciate the fact that ECL was a dividend paying company that had declared dividend on 22 September 2016 vide Book Closure/Record BC 24/09/2016- 24/09/2016.The Ld. A.O. also ignored the fact that Canara Bank was holding share capital in ECL. Shareholding Pattern as on March-2016 shows that Canara

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

20,718 (i.e. after excluding the fresh loans of Rs.26,61,01,009 which were already accepted to be genuine in nature and no addition was made in the assessment order) which have been added under section 68 in the assessment order, the JAO vide his remand report has proposed to retain the addition of Rs.52

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

20,718 (i.e. after excluding the fresh loans of Rs.26,61,01,009 which were already accepted to be genuine in nature and no addition was made in the assessment order) which have been added under section 68 in the assessment order, the JAO vide his remand report has proposed to retain the addition of Rs.52

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) ..

20 individuals but shares were allotted to them during assessment year under appeal - Whether since no monies were received during assessment year under appeal there was no scope for invoking provisions of section 68 - Held, yes [Para 4.4.1] fin favour of assessee 2. [2014] 225 Taxman 190 (Gujarat)(MAG.) CIT vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel Akil Kureshi, J – 1. Revenue

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

20. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee and having found that similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment year deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by holding that non–cash right back should be excluded from charge of tax. 21. We have heard rival contentions and perused