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)

section 68. vi. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. v. Asstt CIT [2006] 283 ITR 377 / 155 Taxman 289 (Raj.), Uma Polymers

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat) whereas held as under. Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee had sold shares of SNCFL and earned long-term capital gains - Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice alleging that transaction was a pennystock deal

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

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

68 of the same under the Act without considering that they are supported by valid documents. The assessee further submitted that it has furnished confirmation letters along with copies of their bank statement and acknowledgement of IT returns showing the above transactions. The assessee further contended that in 21 ITA.No.3171/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) M/s. Nisa Industrial Services

ITO-15(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRAVIR POLYMERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act. It is important to note that the Hon'ble Courts have held that the assessee is not required to prove source of the source as held in the case of Tolaram Daga vs CIT reported in 59 IT 632. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs Hanuman Agarawal reported

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

68 to 69C to assessment years prior to Asstt. Year 2017-18. F) Reliance on: i) 219 taxman 279 (Gujarat) CIT-II vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. ii) (2007) 291 ITR 0258 (Madras) CIT vs. Chensing Ventures iii) ITAT order in ITA No.1972/Ahd/2012 in the case of M/s. K.R. Automobiles vide order dated 03/02/2014. iv) ITAT order

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), wherein held as under: P a g e | 16 A.Y. 2014-15 Devang Bhupendra Shah Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year 2013-14- Assessee had sold shares of SNCFL and earned long-term capital gains -Assessing Officer issued

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act as the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, wherein the same script i.e M/s Tilak Venture Ltd was in question and after evaluating the entire factual and financial statements of M/s. Tilak Venture Ltd, additions were deleted. In this regard the Ld.AR also relied upon the decision

KAILASH PUNAVASI YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 of the Act particularly when there was factum of cash deposit to the bank account of creditors immediately before issuance of cheques to the assessee as unsecured loan. The Assessing officer has noted a detailed and categorical finding, destroying the factual correctness of confirmation issued by M/s Raj associates and its capacity to extend the unsecured loan

KAILAS PUNAVASI YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 of the Act particularly when there was factum of cash deposit to the bank account of creditors immediately before issuance of cheques to the assessee as unsecured loan. The Assessing officer has noted a detailed and categorical finding, destroying the factual correctness of confirmation issued by M/s Raj associates and its capacity to extend the unsecured loan

DCIT- 27(2), MUMBAI, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. NAYAN BUILDERS, GHATKOPAR EAST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in above\nterms

section by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1-4-2013 to provide\nthat where the assessee is a company and the sum so credited consists of share\napplication money, share capital, share premium etc., the explanation\nfurnished by the assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory unless the\nperson in whose name such credit is recorded also offers

SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 can be invoked. invoked.” 5.2 The learned CIT(A), upon a detailed examination, concurred The learned CIT(A), upon a detailed examination, concurred The learned CIT(A), upon a detailed examination, concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority with the findings of the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority with the findings

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI vs. INX MEDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Circle 6(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Mumbai – 20. Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 6(1), 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, Vs. Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road Mumbai – 20. (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 68 of the Act. In the said paras, FAA considered various documentary evidences such as Income Tax returns, PAN, Certificate of incorporation, Audited Financial Statements, Bank account statements of the assessee, Board Resolution allotting shares, Registration of the company etc. 28. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal on the issue

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Vasupujya Filaments (batch appeals) 4. Before us, the Learned counsel for the assessee has stated the facts and the background of the case as culled out from the impugned order and material on record in the following manner: 3. The statement of Shri Bhadresh M. Dodhia was recorded during the course

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Vasupujya Filaments (batch appeals) 4. Before us, the Learned counsel for the assessee has stated the facts and the background of the case as culled out from the impugned order and material on record in the following manner: 3. The statement of Shri Bhadresh M. Dodhia was recorded during the course

DIASTAR JEWELLERY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Inspite of appellant submitting all the supporting for unsecured loans, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions just because the loans were interest free loans from unknown parties.” 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of fine

ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI vs. RAM TEXTILES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

155 (Raj.), Focus Export Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 51 taxman 46 (Del.), CIT vs United Commercial and Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal.), etc. 3 M/s Ram Textiles 2.1. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Shashank Dundu, strongly defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) by contending that onus cast upon

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

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

68 of the income tax act. In the result, for all these years appeals filed by the AO as well as the assessee are dismissed. 35. In the result all 14 appeals filed in case of Relcon Infra projects Limited by the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2014–15 to 2020–21 are dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

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

68 of the income tax act. In the result, for all these years appeals filed by the AO as well as the assessee are dismissed. 35. In the result all 14 appeals filed in case of Relcon Infra projects Limited by the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2014–15 to 2020–21 are dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied