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 merely on the basis that details regarding the source of source of funds of such rights shareholders has not been provided. Further, this action of the learned AO also undermines the order of learned TPO and learned DRP wherein the right issue made to such shareholders has been examined and verified with no adverse

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

section 68 by an amount of Rs. 3,25,27,267/-, proposed by the JAO in his remand report, as the AO had already considered these amounts as genuine in nature while passing the assessment order originally, ignoring that during the remand report proceeding on enquiry made by the AO these loan have been found non- genuine

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

section 68 by an amount of Rs. 3,25,27,267/-, proposed by the JAO in his remand report, as the AO had already considered these amounts as genuine in nature while passing the assessment order originally, ignoring that during the remand report proceeding on enquiry made by the AO these loan have been found non- genuine

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (E) RG 1, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,07,442/- to HRG, it had violated provisions of section 13. Accordingly, he denied benefit of section 11

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,07,442/- to HRG, it had violated provisions of section 13. Accordingly, he denied benefit of section 11

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)\nmust

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 68. Therefore, the AO\nis directed to delete the addition. The\nassessee succeeds in this appeal. 11.\nResultantly

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

68, in terms, are not applicable The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)\nmust

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act\nand then held:\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative\nsociety has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State\nLegislature in that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)\nmust

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

11 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. assessment, because the powers with effect from 01/04/1989 are contextually different and the cumulative conditions spelt out in clauses (a) and (b) of section 147, prior to its amendment are not present in the amended provision. The only condition for action is that the Assessing Officer “should have reason to believe” that income chargeable

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

11 of the impugned order is the 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

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

11 (II) ITCL 443 (Ahd-Trib) 101 TTJ (All-Trib) 810. The provisions of section 68 are in pari

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

11 (II) ITCL 443 (Ahd-Trib) 101 TTJ (All-Trib) 810. The provisions of section 68 are in pari

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUCHIR CHEMICALS PVT LTD, MUMBAI.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

11 of the impugned order is the 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

ASIA SOCIETY INDIA CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

68,250/- and INR.21,60,433/- were applied during the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2011-12, respectively and therefore, the aforesaid amounts could have been brought to tax in the hands of the Appellant during the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2011-12, respectively, as per the provisions contained in Section 11