DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of\nthe Act. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion the\naddition made by the AO on account of receipt of share\npremium is sustained. The Ground of Appeal No. 2 is\ndismissed.\"\n5.\nAggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), the\nassessee is before us.\n6.\nWe have heard both the parties

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 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

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

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

section 68 of the\nAct in the hands of the co-operative credit society:-\n(a) In the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha\n(ITA No.646/Bang/2021 dated 18-02-2022), the Tribunal considered the\nissue as to whether the demonetised currencies collected from the\nmembers and deposited into the bank account of the assessee could

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

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount

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

section 68 of the\nAct in the hands of the co-operative credit society:-\n\n(a) In the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha\n(ITA No.646/Bang/2021 dated 18-02-2022), the Tribunal considered the\nissue as to whether the demonetised currencies collected from the\nmembers and deposited into the bank account of the assessee could

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

section 68 of the\nAct in the hands of the co-operative credit society:-\n(a) In the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha\n(ITA No.646/Bang/2021 dated 18-02-2022), the Tribunal considered the\nissue as to whether the demonetised currencies collected from the\nmembers and deposited into the bank account of the assessee could

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

section 68 of the\nAct in the hands of the co-operative credit society:-\n(a) In the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha\n(ITA No.646/Bang/2021 dated 18-02-2022), the Tribunal considered the\nissue as to whether the demonetised currencies collected from the\nmembers and deposited into the bank account of the assessee could