DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of "that previous year " also lends support to the contentions of Dr. Daniel. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we answer the first substantial question

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of "that previous year " also lends support to the contentions of Dr. Daniel. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we answer the first substantial question

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the IT Act. Further, these share IT Act. Further, these share-applicants have been accepted as genuine applicants have been accepted as genuine during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act in the AY during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act in the AY during assessment proceedings

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. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the action of the Assessing Officer was upheld. On appeal: 11. The Honble Tribunal in the case of Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO, [2022] 138

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

68 of the Act the Assessing Officer has relied on the figures as appearing in the books of account. 10.5. The appellants further, submit that unless any specific defects are pointed out in the books of account by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be summarily rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

68 of the Act the Assessing Officer has relied on the figures as appearing in the books of account. 10.5. The appellants further, submit that unless any specific defects are pointed out in the books of account by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be summarily rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance

M/S TYSON MARKETING P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

68 of the Act, only those loans / sums of money actually received by the assessee can be taxed.” 3. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of admissibility of additional ground. We find that additional ground raised being legal in nature and no investigation of fresh facts is required, therefore, same is admitted for adjudication

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TARMAT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit 13(3)(2), Tarmat Limited Room No. 229, Roman Tarmat Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, General Vaidya Marg, M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aaact1561G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant had submitted the following documents in respect of the aforesaid unsecured loans: (1) Copy of PAN card of the lenders (page no. 162-171) (2) Acknowledgement copy of the e-filed return of income for AY 2018-19 of the lenders (page no. 162-171) (3) Copy of bank statements

ACIT C.C. -13, CENT. RG.-3, MUMBAI vs. M/S. KRISHIRAJ TRADING LTD (NOW MERGEED WITH MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PVT. LTYD, MUMBAI

138/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance of the aforesaid amount under Section 14A of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer notice that the Assessee had taken interest free unsecured loan of INR 1,00,23,50,000/- from Crescent Trading Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Lender’). The Assessee was asked to prove identity and creditworthiness

RUBBERWALA HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5 (3)91), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

138 (All.) ln the case of Lalpuria Construction P. Ltd (supra) the Hon. Rajasthan High Court has held that "that in the case of Accommodation entry – without giving an opportunity of cross examination merely on the basis of oral statement additions cannot be made u/s. 68. It is further held that: “The oral statement of a third party recorded

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

68. 4.10 The operator The appellant has denied the connection with the exit provider in the statement recorded u/s 131. The Learned Assessing officer has stated that statement of said operator recorded u/s 132(4) at the back of the assesse and no copies of his statement were given to the appellant. Further no incriminating document was found in respect

I.T.O. - 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. SMT. LEENA HARESH HARDE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(2)(5) V. Smt Leena Haresh Harde Room No. 506, C-10, 5Th Floor 502, 5Th Floor, Padmawati Palace Pratyakshakar Bhavan Nanda Patkar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaxph1737Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Michael Jerald

138 (All.) ln the case of Lalpuria Construction P. Ltd (supra) the Hon. Rajasthan High Court has held that "that in the case of Accommodation entry – without giving an opportunity of cross examination merely on the basis of oral statement additions cannot be made u/s. 68. It is further held that: 19 Smt Leena Haresh Harde “The oral statement

SKA SALES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICSR, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

138 taxmann.com 64/286 Taxman 183/444 ITR 1\n(SC)/2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, would apply. In that case, the\nimpugned Notices though issued under section 148 of the\nunamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issued under\nsection 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance\nAct, 2021.\n3. There

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

Section 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans taken from various parties during the relevant previous year. We note that all the relevant details/documents were filed by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer. No further enquiry/verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Further, the unsecured loans were also repaid by the Appellant. A perusal of documents

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, the Income Tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under Section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject

AJAY MALSHI DEDHIA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 31(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.641/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed from the details submitted by the assessee that the assessee had , inter-alia, received loans amounting 4 I.T.A. No.641/Mum/2017 to Rs. 90,00,000/- from three parties namely M/s. Ankita Exports, M/s. Roshan Gems Private Ltd. and M/s. Prime Star and these three parties are appearing in the list

SI SHRADDHA REALTORS,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA vs. ITO 32(3)(3), MUMBAI, INDIA

In the result, in view of our decision in ITA No

Section 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans taken from various parties during the relevant previous year. We note that all the relevant details/documents were filed by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer. No further enquiry/verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Further, the unsecured loans were also repaid by the Appellant. A perusal of documents

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. MANBA FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

138 (AH.) The Hon. Rajas than High Court in the case of C.I.T. v. A. Lalpuria Construction P. Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 12 (Mag)(Raj) have held that in the case of Accommodation entry - without giving an opportunity of cross examination merely on the basis of oral statement additions cannot be made u/s. 68. It is further held that