FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

158 Taxman 440 Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008] 299 IT 268/(2007] 158 Taxman 440 Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008] 299 IT 268/(2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi) and the order rendered by the Supreme Court in a (Delhi) and the order rendered by the Supreme Court in a (Delhi) and the order rendered by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

158 Taxman 440 Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008] 299 IT 268/(2007] 158 Taxman 440 Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008] 299 IT 268/(2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi) and the order rendered by the Supreme Court in a (Delhi) and the order rendered by the Supreme Court in a (Delhi) and the order rendered by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Section\n11538 of the Act. However, since the entire business loss of\nRs.14,68,364/- is being disallowed in para 6 below of this\norder, no separate addition is being made in this respect. In\ncase, at any of the appellate stages, the disallowance of\nbusiness loss is held to be allowable, then disallowance u/s\n14A of Rs.14,68

THE ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

section 68. Hence, the question which requires attention is about the genuineness of the transaction. 5.6.5 I have carefully analyzed the adverse observations made by the Assessing Officer and the rebuttal filed by the appellant against the same. The Assessing Officer has made the addition mainly citing the reason that the funds have been credited and withdrawn

MAHENDRA H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD- 4 (1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 merely relying on the statement of an alleged entry operator where identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of transaction was proved. 8. It is a settled law that it is mandatory for the Ld. AO to confront the assessee with any material collected by the Assessing Officer at the back of the assessee, and in case

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

158' Taxman 440, considering a similar question held that the Assessee- company, having received subscriptions from the public/rights issue through banking channels and furnished complete details of the shareholders, no addition could be 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 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

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

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

section 68. (8) CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/115 Taxman 99 (SC) where the Supreme Court held that even if it was argued that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions

ITO-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SETHIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 68 are CIT v. Divine Leasing & Financing Ltd., (2007) 158 Taxman 440, and CIT v. Value Capital Service

UB OSTAN (INDIA) P. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ub Ostan (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Officer-1(3)-4, Sahyadri Sadan, Tilak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Pune-411-030. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aabcu 2815 K Appellant Respondent

68 which in fact was duly supported by the documentary n fact was duly supported by the documentary evidence and underwent the tests of Identity, Creditworthiness, evidence and underwent the tests of Identity, Creditworthiness, evidence and underwent the tests of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness successfully. and Genuineness successfully. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2, On the facts

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RUBBERWALA REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to\n2021-22 stands allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19\nstands dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on this ...

68 of the Act was untenable both in law and on facts\nand thus the AO is directed to delete the same as well. Consequently,\nthe disallowance of interest paid on this loan in AYs 2020-21 & 2021-\n33\nITA No.3443 & Ors/Mum/2023\nA.Ys. 2015-16 to 2021-22\nRubberwala Realty\n22 made u/s 69C of the Act is also held

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 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assesse. This burden, which is placed on the assesse, shifts as soon as the assesse

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

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

section 56(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.5.5 the following guiding factors laid down by various courts have been considered in concluding that the amounts received by assesse are taxable in the hands of assessee under the head income from the other sources: There must be an identification sources - Before a particular amount can be characterized

ITO 7(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. HOMESHINE PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2231/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

section 68 of the assessee company’. 16. Similar view was taken by the Courts that share application money cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee company in the following decisions:- i) Steller Investment Ltd 115 Taxman 99 (SC) (2000) ii) Divine Lesing & Finance Ltd. 158

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

ITO 14(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. NEXTGEN CONSTRUCTIONS P.TLD (CHANGED TO M/S AETIUS CONSTRUCTION P. LTD WHICH IS FURTHER AMALGAMATED WITH M/S SUPERGOLD PROPERTIES PVT. LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

158 ITR 78 (SO: It is also possible that a creditor may have advanced funds from out of his exempted income. For eg. If the creditor has agricultural income which is exempt, then merely because the creditor is not assessed to tax, it does not follow that the credits are assessee's income." From the above factual and the decisions