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 ()

Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. Now, in order to Now, in order to appreciate the submission it would be appreciate the submission it would be necessary to consider the Judgment of the Delhi High

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 Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed complete details of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed complete details of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed complete details of the share subscribers which were forward of the share subscribers which were forwarded

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, ()

160 taxmann.com 608 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court dismissed SLP filed by the department. The head notes of the said judgment read as under Section 10(38), read with sections 68

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, ()

160 taxmann.com 608 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court dismissed SLP filed by the department. The head notes of the said judgment read as under Section 10(38), read with sections 68

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HIRA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhriassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.126, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Hira Technologies Private Limited Plot No.1, Part-Ii, Khed City Taluka Khed, Rajgurunagar Pune, Dta Village, ……………. Respondent Khanesar, Pune – 410505 Pan: Aabch2291N

Section 68 of the Act are clearly not attracted to amount representing purchases made on credits, as is also held in 'CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain', 205 CTR 444 (All). The assessee raised this issue by way of written submissions (APB 37 to 160

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)

160 taxmann.com 608 (SC) whereas Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed SLP filed department and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court confirmed and finding of said decision reproduced as under. 11 Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai. Section 10(38), read with sections 68

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

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 68 11 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases extensively and referred to the bogus sham transaction and Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in this regard. Thereafter the Assessing Officer referred to Special Investigation wing report on black money. Thereafter he referred to the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 68 11 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases extensively and referred to the bogus sham transaction and Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in this regard. Thereafter the Assessing Officer referred to Special Investigation wing report on black money. Thereafter he referred to the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT

DCIT-13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SHUBHAM MOTIWALA & JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

68 may be invoked. In the present case also the ITO did not make any enquiries as to the existence or genuineness of the shareholders and, therefore, the Commissioner revised the order under section 263. The Tribunal did not advert to this finding of the Commissioner at all and it did not hold that enquiries as to the existance

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the 1961 Act and the appellate order 29 passed by learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained in view of our aforesaid detailed observations. Thus, under these circumstances we hereby confirm additions to the tune of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- as were made by the Assessing Officer and set aside the appellate order passed

ASST CIT 6 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S CHIRIPAL POLY FILMS LTD., MUMBAI

68 of the Act. While Ground No. 4 & 5 pertain to alternative addition of INR 23,71,34,031/- proposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The facts relevant to the adjudication of the grounds under 8. consideration, as emerging from the perusal of the records including the paper-book filed

DINESHKUMAR VERMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KALYAN

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1183/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Dineshkumar Verma, 102, Sai Aashram Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Tejumal Chaki Road, Nr. Sadhubela School, Ulhasnagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Tahane 421 001 Pan : Acmpv 7468B बनाम/ Vs.

160 ITD 605 (Mumbai – Trib.) (4) Kokarre Prabhakara vs. ITO, ITA 1239/Bang/2019 DoD 11/09/2020 2.2. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee asserted that although the provisions of section 68

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 both the nature and source of credit is required to be explained to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The assessee has produced the communication dated 15/2/2018 from central bureau of investigation and the letter dated 30 November 2010 of Directorate of Enforcement wherein it has been categorically stated that there is no enquiry now pending against

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 both the nature and source of credit is required to be explained to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The assessee has produced the communication dated 15/2/2018 from central bureau of investigation and the letter dated 30 November 2010 of Directorate of Enforcement wherein it has been categorically stated that there is no enquiry now pending against

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 both the nature and source of credit is required to be explained to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The assessee has produced the communication dated 15/2/2018 from central bureau of investigation and the letter dated 30 November 2010 of Directorate of Enforcement wherein it has been categorically stated that there is no enquiry now pending against

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 68 both the nature and source of credit is required to be explained to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The assessee has produced the communication dated 15/2/2018 from central bureau of investigation and the letter dated 30 November 2010 of Directorate of Enforcement wherein it has been categorically stated that there is no enquiry now pending against