DCIT-CC 5(2), CENTRAL RANGE 5, MUMBAI vs. M/S JET PRIVILEGE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

68 of the Act. ” 2. The assessee is in the business of service sector and others. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30/11/2014 declaring a loss of Rs.24,70,53,193/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the course of assessment

ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. AROGYA BHARTI HEALTH PARK P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 68, the assessee has to prove the nature and source of credit found in its books of account. In this case, the AO has brought out clear facts to the effect that the very basic identity and nature of transaction is in doubt, therefore, the sum found credited in the books of account of the assessee is added

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

section 234A, 234B and 234C of IT. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 12. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the delay 74 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the delay was owing to the Corona Virus pandemic. Hence

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

section 68 of the income tax act and has not made an addition\nof commission income of Rs. 104,193

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay

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 is also not applicable as the Assessee has clearly offered explanation about the nature and the source of the credit and the said explanation cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. The Assessee submits that when THDC was the shareholder of the Assessee, THDC contributed the said sum over the period of time to the Assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

section 68 of the income tax act and has not made an addition\nof commission income of Rs. 104,193

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 68 of the income tax act and has not made an addition of commission income of Rs. 104,193

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 68 of the income tax act and has not made an addition of commission income of Rs. 104,193

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

SANDESH PROJECTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 68 of the income\ntax act it is the duty of the assessee to prove the\nidentity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the\nshareholder. Assessee has submitted details of share\napplication money, copy of the Ledger account in the\nbooks of investor companies, name address permanent\naccount number in tax jurisdiction etc of the investor\ncompanies, income tax return

ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. CITYGOLD EDUCATION RESEARCH LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Income Tax Officer -9(2)(3) Citygold Education Room No. 601A, 6Th Floor, Research Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ackruti Trade Centre, 6Th Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Floor, Road No.7, Marol – Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aafca5195A

section 68 of the Act if the assessee fails to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of those parties. The appellant vide letter dated 14th March 2013 objected to the proposed addition. The submission of the appellant was not acceptable to the AO. In the opinion of the AO the appellant has not discharged the onus casted

AEON COMMERCIAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMABI

68 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 to applied the taxed under the provision of section 115BBE\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the\nsaid amounts in the nature of inter corporate deposits have already\nbeen returned by the Assessee.\n4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC Delhi has\nerred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

193, 194, 194A, 194B, 194BB and 194D, the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf in the Finance Act of the relevant year ; (iii) for the purposes of deduction of tax under section 194LBA or section 194LBB or section 194LBC or section 195, the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this

ITO 4(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. AGARWAL CLOTH AGENCY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiito-4(1)(3) Vs. M/S Agarwal Cloth Agency Room No.637A, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan 122, Zaveri Bazar Trishala Building,5Th Floor M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Kharakua Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aaeca6963D Appellant) .. Respondent)

68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68 is a statutory recognition of what was previously established by judicial decisions to the effect that where certain sums of money were claimed by the assessee to have been borrowed from certain persons, it was for the assessee to prove by cogent and proper evidence that there were genuine borrowings as the facts are exclusively within

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68 is a statutory recognition of what was previously established by judicial decisions to the effect that where certain sums of money were claimed by the assessee to have been borrowed from certain persons, it was for the assessee to prove by cogent and proper evidence that there were genuine borrowings as the facts are exclusively within