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

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

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 with respect to the loans falling under this category is that the lender had miniscule income which did not match with the loans given by the lender to the appellant. However, the fact remains that the said lenders have at least filed their returns of income and they are the assessees before the revenue. What

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 with respect to the loans falling under this category is that the lender had miniscule income which did not match with the loans given by the lender to the appellant. However, the fact remains that the said lenders have at least filed their returns of income and they are the assessees before the revenue. What

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)

11 by invoking section 13 4. During the previous year ended 31st March 2007, the assessee entered into an agreement with Hansa Research Group Pvt. Ltd. ("HRG") (Page 45-58 of PB - IRS 2007) where under HRG agreed to conduct market survey and compile reports styled as Indian Readership Survey ("IRS") to be provided by the assessee

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)

11 by invoking section 13 4. During the previous year ended 31st March 2007, the assessee entered into an agreement with Hansa Research Group Pvt. Ltd. ("HRG") (Page 45-58 of PB - IRS 2007) where under HRG agreed to conduct market survey and compile reports styled as Indian Readership Survey ("IRS") to be provided by the assessee

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, this appeal is allowed.\n4.\nIncome\nTax Officer-\n22(3)(6

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

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

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

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

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

6. NILHAT PROMOTERS & FISCAL PVT. LTD. COSMIC TRADE & INV PVT. LTD. 470000 23500000 7. COSMIC TRADE & INV PVT. LTD. VENTEX TRADE PVT. LTD. 298000 14900000 8. VENTEX TRADE PVT. LTD. ANKITA FINVEST PVT. LTD. 190000 9500000 9. ANKITA FINVEST PVT. LTD. PENTEX EXPO PVT. LTD. 100000 5000000 10. PENTEX EXPO PVT. LTD. TUTICORIN TREXIM PVT. LTD. 170000 8500000 11. TUTICORIN

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) ..

6 SOT 301 (DELHI) Parmod Kumar Dang vs. JCIT Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1996-97 - Assessee received amounts of Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 2 lakhs on 28-9-1995 and 3-10-1995, respectively, by way of cash credit from one R - He also received amount

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)

6) assessing officer must have reason to believe so. When 8 Assessment Year 2012-2013 section 11(3) treats the accumulated income of the past year of the petitioner as income of the assessment year 2001-02, there can be no question of any income escaping assessment in the past assessment years i.e. the assessment years

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 of the Act and concluded that it does not apply

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

6 to 7 years of the transactions. 7.8 One cannot lost sight of the fact that the impugned AY is 2010- 11 and pre-amended section 68

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

6) of the Act but same was not replied and therefore, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition under section 115BE by invoking provisions of section 68 of the income tax act. 08. Thus the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144B of the income tax act was passed on 21/4/2021 wherein

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

6) of the Act but same was not replied and therefore, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition under section 115BE by invoking provisions of section 68 of the income tax act. 08. Thus the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144B of the income tax act was passed on 21/4/2021 wherein

M/S.FROHAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

6. ITO vs. Vishwadham Traders P. Ltd. (supra) "Section 68 of the Act is not applicable on the facts of the assessee ^s case, since no money transaction took place between assessee and share subscribing companies. It is a simple case of shares being allotted in lieu of shares held by the share subscribers. That is, it is just