M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2),, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order) and contended that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. He relies on: Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (Ker), erroneously cited as a Supreme Court decision, and K.V. Produce

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582 (SC)/2021 SCC Online SC 575 "19. The object of section 43B, as originally enacted, is to allow certain deductions only on actual payment. This is made clear by the non-obstante clause contained in the beginning of the provision, coupled with the deduction being allowed irrespective of the previous years

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

129 of the Act, 2013 and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act would show that in case of insurance or banking companies or companies engaged in generation or supply of electricity or class of companies for whom financial statement has been specified under the Act governing such company, the requirement of preparing

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 68 was to be deleted-Held, yes [Paras 7, 7.2 and 9] [In favour of assessee). Ground of Appeal 2 On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in concluding that cash sales has increased drastically upto 10 times as compared to the previous year without appreciating the facts

ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CHEMICON ENGINEERING CONSULTANT PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

Section 68 of the Act, which was also furnished by the assessee. Upon perusing the orders impugned before us in light of the documents furnished by the shareholders and assessee, we therefore first deem it fit to look into the facts of each investors which invested money in the assessee company in the form of share capital along with

CHEMICON ENGINEERING CONSULTANT PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

Section 68 of the Act, which was also furnished by the assessee. Upon perusing the orders impugned before us in light of the documents furnished by the shareholders and assessee, we therefore first deem it fit to look into the facts of each investors which invested money in the assessee company in the form of share capital along with

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S LUXORA REALTORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

68 of the Act only if assessee is unable to explain the credits appearing in the books. 28. Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. TRN Enersv Pvt Ltd held that share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee