INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

144A of the act the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 13,464,050/– wherein the addition under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

144A of the act the total income\nof the assessee was assessed at Rs. 13,464,050/- wherein the\naddition under section 68

NAGJI KESHAVJI RITA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

68  Allowance of brought forward losses.  Application of provisions of section 115BBE with rega5rds rate of taxation  The taxation of entry operator charges (commission)  Allowance of speculation loss  Taxation of property rights and sale of property  Genuineness of Unsecured loans and creditworthiness of creditors 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds

SPEEDKING COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Speedking Courier Income Tax Officer- Services Pvt. Ltd. 4(3)(3), 25/27, Old Hanuman Galli, Room No. 648, Vs. 1St Cross Lane, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 002. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaics3715M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) Sr., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. The Appellant Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Income Tax Officer- 4(3)(3) Mumbai By Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Addition Of Rs.1,53,00,000/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not Justified. 1. The Ld Cit(A) Is Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- Made By The Ld. A.O. Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Basic Condition To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 68 Are Not Satisfied In The Present Case. Hence, The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not In Accordance With The Law & The Same May Be Deleted.

68 treating the same as unexplained cash credit is not justified and the same may be deleted. Levy of interest under section 234B & 234C of the Act is unjustified 3. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234B & 234C as the same is unjustified. 4. The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter and amend

MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144A is the Ld. JCIT has to give his judgement/ direction on a issue before him and the Ld. AO is bound to implement such judgement direction. Therefore it is submitted that no proper judgement/ direction given by the JCIT and therefore the order of the Ld. AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is null and void

BHAGWATI RAJARAM CHANDORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 18(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Room No.30, 3Rd Floor, Ganesh Bhuwan, 80 Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400002 ............... Appellant Pan : Aecpc8718H V/S Ito, Ward – 18(1)(2), Mumbai - 400002 ……………… Respondent

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 2 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Assessing Officer

DILSA DISTRIBUTORS COMBINE ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-16, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

144A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) was completed on 31.03.2005 determining the income at Rs.49.5 lacs and the addition was made of Rs.49.5 lacs on account of the hawala loans and interest on such hawala loans claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A) and learned

VIPUL MODI,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-CIRCLE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

144A of the Act from JCIT, Range-20(2), Mumbai and there has been no initiation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. therefore submitted that in view of these facts the revisionary jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT and consequent order passed may kindly be passed. 5. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

144A; 8 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner

SHRI PAWAN JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE (7)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Am & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

68,540/- and claiming agricultural income of ₹1,78,000/-. On similar facts, the assessment order under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 17th June, 2021, at the total income of ₹4,46,540/-. 09. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018, declaring total income

PAWAN JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD (7) (4), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Am & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

68,540/- and claiming agricultural income of ₹1,78,000/-. On similar facts, the assessment order under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 17th June, 2021, at the total income of ₹4,46,540/-. 09. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018, declaring total income

PAWAN JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD (7) (4), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Am & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

68,540/- and claiming agricultural income of ₹1,78,000/-. On similar facts, the assessment order under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 17th June, 2021, at the total income of ₹4,46,540/-. 09. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018, declaring total income

PAWAN JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD (7) (4), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Am & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

68,540/- and claiming agricultural income of ₹1,78,000/-. On similar facts, the assessment order under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 17th June, 2021, at the total income of ₹4,46,540/-. 09. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018, declaring total income

PAWAN JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD (7) (4), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Am & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

68,540/- and claiming agricultural income of ₹1,78,000/-. On similar facts, the assessment order under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 17th June, 2021, at the total income of ₹4,46,540/-. 09. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018, declaring total income

PAWAN JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD (7) (4), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Am & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

68,540/- and claiming agricultural income of ₹1,78,000/-. On similar facts, the assessment order under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 17th June, 2021, at the total income of ₹4,46,540/-. 09. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018, declaring total income

PAWAN JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD (7) (4), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Am & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

68,540/- and claiming agricultural income of ₹1,78,000/-. On similar facts, the assessment order under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 17th June, 2021, at the total income of ₹4,46,540/-. 09. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018, declaring total income

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 do no emanate from any\nseized documents which are incriminating in nature. In this regard, we refer\nand rely upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal Kolkata\nBench, in Arati Ray v/s DCIT, ITA no.778/Kol./2024, for the assessment year\n2014-15, order dated 11/07/2024, wherein the Bench, on identical issue,\nheld as under