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

68 by providing the identity of the creditor by giving complete address, creditworthiness by giving PAN and genuineness by transactions through banking channel. In the case of CIT V/s. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that when the assessee furnished name and address of the creditor and the GIR number, the burden shifts

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 ()

Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. Now, in order to Now, in order to appreciate the submission it would be appreciate the submission it would be necessary to consider the Judgment of the Delhi High

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 ()

Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. Now, in order to Now, in order to appreciate the submission it would be appreciate the submission it would be necessary to consider the Judgment of the Delhi High

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, 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, ()

119/- as exempt capital gain u/s 10(38) of the act. However, on the basis of information received by the AO, that the price of the shares of the company were manipulated and the company was a penny stock. Therefore, the assessment was reopened and ultimately order of assessment u/s 147/144B of the act was passed thereby making additions

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, ()

119/- as exempt capital gain u/s 10(38) of the act. However, on the basis of information received by the AO, that the price of the shares of the company were manipulated and the company was a penny stock. Therefore, the assessment was reopened and ultimately order of assessment u/s 147/144B of the act was passed thereby making additions

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

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

section 68 of the Act, the AO without even pointing out any infirmity in the documents 14 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises filed by the assesse regarding the lenders who were regular income tax assessees, the AO has made high pitched assessment by just giving 24 hours notice to produce all the 127 parties

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

section 68 of the Act, the AO without even pointing out any infirmity in the documents 14 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises filed by the assesse regarding the lenders who were regular income tax assessees, the AO has made high pitched assessment by just giving 24 hours notice to produce all the 127 parties

NISA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

section 68. (8) CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/115 Taxman 99 (SC) where the Supreme Court held that even if it was argued that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

68 of the Act by treating the same as unexplained cash credits." 3. As pointed out by your good office in the said show cause notice, admittedly the assessee has sold shares of M/s MaaJagadambe Trade Links and M/s Moryo Industries Ltd for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,53,808/~. Pursuant to a specific inquiry by the Ld.AO under

DCIT - CC -3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALKALASH TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

119], held that: (SCC OnLine Del para 43) \"43.... the initial onus\nis upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate\nthe mischief of Section 68

ITO-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SETHIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

119 (Delhi)(2011), held that : “The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. M/S. INDIC WISDOM PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

68, the settled legal position is that the assessee must establish three ingredients: identity of the subscriber, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. In this case, the appellant has furnished: • Full particulars and PANs of subscribers; • Valuation reports as per Rule 11UA substantiating the share premium; • Bank statements of the appellant showing receipt through banking channels; • Bank statements

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 of ₹ 14 crores was made. 017. When matter reached before the learned CIT – A he deleted the above addition as per paragraph number 3.16 and 3.17 of his order holding that the i. Amounts were received after necessary statutory approval from the foreign investment promotion board, which was required in such cases. Therefore, the receipts cannot

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 of ₹ 14 crores was made. 017. When matter reached before the learned CIT – A he deleted the above addition as per paragraph number 3.16 and 3.17 of his order holding that the i. Amounts were received after necessary statutory approval from the foreign investment promotion board, which was required in such cases. Therefore, the receipts cannot

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 of ₹ 14 crores was made. 017. When matter reached before the learned CIT – A he deleted the above addition as per paragraph number 3.16 and 3.17 of his order holding that the i. Amounts were received after necessary statutory approval from the foreign investment promotion board, which was required in such cases. Therefore, the receipts cannot

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 of ₹ 14 crores was made. 017. When matter reached before the learned CIT – A he deleted the above addition as per paragraph number 3.16 and 3.17 of his order holding that the i. Amounts were received after necessary statutory approval from the foreign investment promotion board, which was required in such cases. Therefore, the receipts cannot

K.B. J JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 68. No question of law, far less any substantial question of law arises for our consideration. We may however briefly reflect upon a submission made by learned Counsel for the Respondent to the effect that the assessed had, by its letter dated March 8, 1999 requested the AO to examine the Assessment Records of the share applicants whose