AAKASH UNIVERSAL LIMITED ( MERGED ENTITY RAJKIRAN TEXTILES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed

194 Taxman 43) where\nit was held that the initial onus of burden lies with the\nassessee, once he provides the identity by providing PAN or\nAssessment Numbers then the onus of proof shift to revenue,\nand it would not give revenue right to invoke section 68

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted”’ 21. The CIT(A) has considered the business operations, evidences and provisions of the Act and has deleted the addition, observing at Para 12.2 to 12.5 of the order as under: “12.2 I have carefully considered the findings of the AO in the assessment order in the light of submissions

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted”’ 21. The CIT(A) has considered the business operations, evidences and provisions of the Act and has deleted the addition, observing at Para 12.2 to 12.5 of the order as under: “12.2 I have carefully considered the findings of the AO in the assessment order in the light of submissions

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 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance

DCIT-13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VEDARTHA ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-13(3)(2), M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Jaimala Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Hotel Shimmers, Link Road, Mumbai-400020. Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaecv 0129 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021

194 Taxman 43, wherein it was held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in Section 68

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 on this count. The aforesaid principle has been upheld in the following decisions: a. Bombay High Court R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) v. CIT [1970] 750 ITR 33 In the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 on this count. The aforesaid principle has been upheld in the following decisions: a. Bombay High Court R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) v. CIT [1970] 750 ITR 33 In the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name

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 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act e Tax Act,1961 is intended to serve the objective o intended to serve the objective of checking tax evasion f checking tax evasion.” 8. Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus

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 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act e Tax Act,1961 is intended to serve the objective o intended to serve the objective of checking tax evasion f checking tax evasion.” 8. Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus

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 Act was prospective in nature in spite of the fact that the proviso is clarifactory in nature and thus, retrospective. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before Ld. CIT(A) and relied upon the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that

ACIT CC 6(4), MUMBAI vs. ARSHIYA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

68 for AY 2008- 09 and in AY 2009-10. In the result the corresponding grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. (ii) Disallowances under section 14A read with Rule 8D. (AY 2008-09) 22. In the return of income, the assessee claimed dividend income of Rs. 3,49,85,521/- exempt under section

DCIT (TDS) - 1(3), MUMBAI vs. JET LITE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 2355/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Tax (Tds) 1(3), Siroya Centre, V. Room No. 604, 6 Th Floor, Sahar Airport Road, Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Andheri (E), Hospital Bldg., Mumbai – 400 099. Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan Aadcs4480L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 194J of the Act. The A.O. issued notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A of the Act to the assessee. The assessee was asked to produce month-wise details of PSF and CHC charges, the tax deducted at source thereon and actual payment details which were filed by the assessee. It was observed by the A.O. that the assessee

FAIYAZ YUNUS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Faiyaz Yunus Patel, Ito-27(1)(4), Flat No. 602, Vmk Chs, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Tower Vs. Lbs Marg, Chirag Nagar, No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Akxpp 9040 L Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act.. The ground No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 4. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relates to The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relates to The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relates

THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI. vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 4 crores as per order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 28th December 2018. 033. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned Assessing Officer preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 4 crores as per order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 28th December 2018. 033. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned Assessing Officer preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 4 crores as per order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 28th December 2018. 033. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned Assessing Officer preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned

ACIT CENTRAL CIR 5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 4 crores as per order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 28th December 2018. 033. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned Assessing Officer preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned