INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) held as under. While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made under section 68

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) held as under. While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made under section 68

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

68 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148 ; (iii) the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other

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)

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) held as under. While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made under section 68

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

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals)deleted the addition made under section 68

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

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 68 of the Act\noverlooking the major facts and submissions made on\nvarious dates and that the assesse is a regular investor in\nshares and securities and derives income from other\nsources, interest income and the dividend income. The\npurchase of shares are genuine through banking channels\nand the assesse has substantiated with various details\nreferred

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 if the assessee's explanation was satisfactory. However, in this case Rs.3,71,95,540/- is previous year balance. This amount cannot be added in this year in view of the above section and also Supreme Court case in CIT vs Noorjahan 237 ITR 570. Hence, this addition of Rs.3,71,95,540/- has to be deleted. Shri

RAJDHANI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

section 44AB, and that he has been assessed to income tax for several decades. The assessee also emphasized that no adverse evidence, no statement, and no material suggesting accommodation entries or introduction of unaccounted money had been brought on record. 7. The assessee’s stand before the Assessing Officer was that once the identity of the creditor, the genuineness

RAJDHANI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SINCE DISHA INFIN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST.CIT CIRCLE 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

section 44AB, and that he has been assessed to income tax for several decades. The assessee also emphasized that no adverse evidence, no statement, and no material suggesting accommodation entries or introduction of unaccounted money had been brought on record. 7. The assessee’s stand before the Assessing Officer was that once the identity of the creditor, the genuineness

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

Section 68\nof the Act to explain nature and source of credit in the books of\naccounts of the Assessee for the relevant previous year on account\nof sale of shares of KGN Enterprises Ltd.\n\n6.6.\nWe do not find merit in the above submission advanced on behalf of\nthe Assessee in view of the reasons

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)

156 taxmann.com 605 has also dealt with the identical issue as involved in the instant case and ultimately affirmed the deletion of the identical addition on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10(38) of the Act by observing and holding as under: "3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap

INDUCTO STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Inducto Steel Limited The Acit-3(2)(1) 156, Maker Chambers Vi Aayakar Bhavan 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Vs. M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai-40 0020. Mumbai-400 021. Pan : Aaach1045E Appellant Respondent

156, Maker Chambers VI Aayakar Bhavan 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Vs. M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai-40 0020. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AAACH1045E Appellant Respondent : Shri Reepal Tralshawala Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Thakwani Revenue by : 27/03/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 26/06/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In this appeal, the only addition made

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/-under section under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/-under section under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/-under section under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/-under section under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. The objection filed for reopening Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004