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

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

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

68. In support\nof our contention we rely on the following decisions:-\n\n1. CIT V/s. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC)\n\"Held, that in this case the respondent had given the names and\naddresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the\nRevenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their\nindex

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

68. In support\nof our contention we rely on the following decisions:-\n\n1. CIT V/s. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC)\n"Held, that in this case the respondent had given the names and\naddresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the\nRevenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their\nindex

ACIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 68 also cannot be strictly applied. On the contrary. the Assessing Officer has solely placed reliance on the statement of Shri Khimji Patel, Shri Anand Sharma and Shri Vivek Agarwal and general findings of Investigation wing. When we peruse the facts of A.Y.2011-12, it emerges that M/s. Everfine Constructions Pvt. Ltd. has paid cash

JAYEM REALTY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMM. OF INCOME TAX-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the said facts, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) rws 147 cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263. …” In support of its contention, the assessee

KEMOX CORPORATION,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68 of the Act”. And therefore in view of aforesaid judgment, the addition under consideration is unsustainable, on this aspect itself. 8. We further observe that Both the Authorities below mainly relied on the report submitted by DDIT, Kolkata to the effect that 02 companies are non-existent at the address given and as per data available in Directorate

SULOCHANA GODHWANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

183/- by filling its return of income on dated 31/12/2009, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act . Subsequently, on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing to the effect “that the search and survey action carried out in the premises of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and his group wherein it was revealed that Shri Pravin

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

68 of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A), after taking into consideration the contentions and submissions of the assessee, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee by holding and observing as under: “I have considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, it is seen from the records that "During the year

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 68 and interest expenses are not justifiable. 9. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, referring to the seized material, statement of various persons recorded during the search and the reports of the Investigation Wing, drew our attention to extensive discussion on various case laws cited by the Ld. CI T(A) and relying upon the orders

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 68 and interest expenses are not justifiable. 9. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, referring to the seized material, statement of various persons recorded during the search and the reports of the Investigation Wing, drew our attention to extensive discussion on various case laws cited by the Ld. CI T(A) and relying upon the orders

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GRACE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68 - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of 15,00,000/- on the basis of this fact that the HUF has given loan to one Shri Bhushan Nemlekar in A.Y.2003-04 and 2004-05 of 15,00,000/- which were reflected in balance sheet. The bank statement also speaks about the entry on various dates. Mr. Bhushan Nemlekar

COOL DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed, subject to verification as directed above

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Cool Diamond Private Ward Ito -12(1)(1), Limited, Room No. 129, Aayakar 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 97, Myco Bhawan, M K. Road, Vs. Industrial Area, Misc Industrial Mumbai – 400020. Area, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400093. Pan – Aadcc6707 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, An Information Was Received By The Ao From The Ddit (Inv.) Unit – 4 – Surat, With Regard To The Circular Transaction Of Rs.2,11,19,942/- By The Assessee With M/S. Seven Star Jewels Proprietary. On Perusing The Information, The Ao Observed That It Is Apparent That The Assessee Has Earned An Income To The Tune Of Rs.2,11,19,942/- But Has Not Included This 2 Cool Diamond Private Limited

Section 68 of the Act. However, still the authorities below doubted the transactions of the Assessee mainly on the reason that the Assessee had shown purchase to the tune of Rs.66,71,634/-, whereas made the payment of Rs.95,87,938/- in total during the year under consideration to M/s. Seven Star Jewels (Rs.65

AMIT KUMAR BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Kumar Bajaj Dcit-24(1), A-3001, Omkar, Off Dr. Piramal Chambers, Annie Besant Road, Near Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- Neelam Centre, Hanuman 400 012 Nagar, Worli, Maharashtra – 400 030 Pan/Gir No. Afrpb3442B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

183 ITD 463 (Delhi – Trib.), a copy of which was furnished before us. It was submitted that in the said decision, the co-ordinate Bench was dealing with identical assessment year, identical nature of addition under section 68

DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. FERN INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, MUMBAI

section 68 can be made on account of unexplained cash credit: i. ACIT v. Kisco Casting (P.) Ltd (2013) 34 taxmann.com 37 ii. CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 15 taxmann.com 183

SHAKTI SHARE SHOPPEE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WD-13(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 68 of the Act. In defence of his argument, the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. PCIT, Panji v/s. Paradise Inland Shipping (P.) Ltd. 93 taxmann.com84 (SC) 2. CIT v/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. 80 Taxmann.com 272 (HC-Bom) 3. CIT v/s. Green Infra Ltd. 78 Taxmann.com 340 (HC-Bom) 4. Vodafone India Services

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

68 amounting to ₹ 254,4597,000/- without considering the fact that that intrinsic value of the shares is far less than the Discounted P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Net Assets Value method adopted by the Assessee company to charge such high premium?. 2. On the facts

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

68 amounting to ₹ 254,4597,000/- without considering the fact that that intrinsic value of the shares is far less than the Discounted P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Net Assets Value method adopted by the Assessee company to charge such high premium?. 2. On the facts