DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

166 ITR 862 (AP). h) The deeming part of section 68 deals with cash credits. In section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

166 ITR 862 (AP). h) The deeming part of section 68 deals with cash credits. In section 68

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 68 was to be deleted-Held, yes [Paras 7, 7.2 and 9] [In favour of assessee). Ground of Appeal 2 On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in concluding that cash sales has increased drastically upto 10 times as compared to the previous year without appreciating the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

166 ITR 862 (AP).\n\nh) The deeming part of section 68 deals with cash credits. In section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

166 ITR 862 (AP).\n\nh) The deeming part of section 68 deals with cash credits. In section

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." (vi) In the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd reported in 333 ITR 100. Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided that :- 36 Shri Mahendra H. Shah “……the Tribunal was pleased to follow the judgment

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

section 68 of the Act only if assessee is unable to explain the credits appearing in the books. 28. Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. TRN Enersv Pvt Ltd held that share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed

DCIT CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ACRO EXPORTS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer should prove that the credit is, in fact, the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In this case, nothing has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR further referring to various 23 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mum/2018 C.O.No. 74 & 76/Mum/2019 M/s. Acro Exports Trade Pvt.Ltd. & M/s. Amazon Metals

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMAZON METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer should prove that the credit is, in fact, the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In this case, nothing has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR further referring to various 23 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mum/2018 C.O.No. 74 & 76/Mum/2019 M/s. Acro Exports Trade Pvt.Ltd. & M/s. Amazon Metals

DCIE CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer should prove that the credit is, in fact, the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In this case, nothing has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR further referring to various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

68 and identification of the component of 'Entry Operator charges' and its taxation, without conducting the requisite enquiries, has to be regarded as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 28/09/2017 passed by the AO under section

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 147, of the Income- (Ahmedabad - Trib.) IN THE tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' transfer of long-term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 shares of Income-tax Officer, Ward- 10 company 'T' through a stock broker - These shares (3), Ahmedabad* OCTOBER 21, were transferred

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

166. Note : The case was decided against the assessee.”  In the case of Moti Trust Kota (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

166. Note : The case was decided against the assessee.”  In the case of Moti Trust Kota (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

166. Note : The case was decided against the assessee.”  In the case of Moti Trust Kota (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under

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(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. PRABHADEVI PROPERTIES & TRADING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 7(3)(4) V. M/S. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, Room No. 805 “The Peregrine” 400 Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacp4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Atul Suraiya Department By : Shri Jagdish Jangid

section 68 can be attracted only in the year in which the amount is credited and not in a later year. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the cases of ITO VS. Nasir Khan j. Mahadik (143 ITD 166

SHAKTI HARDWARE COLLECTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Shakti Hardware Collections The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd Income Tax, Cc-22, Vs. 60-62, Kika Street, Gulalwadi, Mumbai Mumbai-400 044 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaecs6501K

section 68 of the Act by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A). The following are the parties: - 3 Sr. No Particulars Amount 1. Daksons Impex Pvt. Ltd 24,00,000 7, Grant Lane, R.No. 302, Kolkata 7000 12 2. M/s Marodona Holding Pvt. Ltd. 30,00,000 27, Weston street, 4th Floor, R.No. 402, Kolkata