DCIT- CIRCLE- 1 , THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

section 68 of the Act, the AO without even pointing out any infirmity in the documents 14 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises filed by the assesse regarding the lenders who were regular income tax assessees, the AO has made high pitched assessment by just giving 24 hours notice to produce all the 127 parties

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. K K VENTURA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands\ndismissed

68\nr.w.s 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3. Notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nwas issued to lender to provide the copy of ITR, confirmation\nstatement, recording the\nloan\ntransaction and copy of\nbank statement. Assessee, in\nresponse to show cause notice provided the copy\nof computation of income, copy

ITO 3(30(3), MUMBAI vs. SOLID MACHINERY CO.P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

200. However, when the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the matter was probed further by the Assessing Officer, it was noticed that the assessee has made purchases of textile items, i.e. fabrics, worth Rs 19,22,05,946 from a large Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 2 of 11 number of entities, and sold all these goods

PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

200% increase in stock price and why the appellant, as a rational investor, would purchase shares at a premium in an unlisted company with no financial backing. Furthermore, In Nangalia Fabrics Pvt Ltd v. ITO (ITA No. 572/Ahd/2013), the ITAT upheld addition under Section 68

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 of the Act in receipts of agricultural activity. 12. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 6,25,200

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 of the Act in receipts of agricultural activity. 12. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 6,25,200

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. 1. "On facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,20,54,200/- on account of introduction of share application money treated as unexplained credit u/s 68

SUMITRA SURENDRA GADODIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(3)(4), BANDRA, MUMBAI

200 days moving average of\nthe stock, which indicated that the long term trend of the stock was firmly up.\nThe said shares were sold as the price of any script would be market driven.\nSince the assessee was an investor, when the prices were continuously\nfalling, the assessee exited from the said script and booked losses to\nsafeguard himself

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GAMA ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), M/S Gama Entertainment 436-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Systems Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Vs. 103, A Wing, Sai Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Gowandi Station Road, Deonar, Gowandi (East), Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aadcg 3492 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Parth Navandar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), he treated the entire value of the share along with share treated the entire value of the share along with share treated the entire value of the share along with share premium of ₹1,99,99,816/ 1,99,99,816/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

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

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

68,353 ii. Onscreen Broadcasting & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd Rs. 1,15,127 iii. Geetanjali Gems ltd. Rs. 4,55,192 iv.Katha Medimix India Rs. 21,12,301 v.TVC Skyshop Ltd. Rs. 25,781 vi. Vinod Singh [(prop. Khyati communication Ltd.)] Rs. 2,85,200 vii. Ortel Communication ltd. Rs. 1,58,400 viii. Optis Hotels

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

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

68,353 ii. Onscreen Broadcasting & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd Rs. 1,15,127 iii. Geetanjali Gems ltd. Rs. 4,55,192 iv.Katha Medimix India Rs. 21,12,301 v.TVC Skyshop Ltd. Rs. 25,781 vi. Vinod Singh [(prop. Khyati communication Ltd.)] Rs. 2,85,200 vii. Ortel Communication ltd. Rs. 1,58,400 viii. Optis Hotels

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

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

68,353 ii. Onscreen Broadcasting & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd Rs. 1,15,127 iii. Geetanjali Gems ltd. Rs. 4,55,192 iv.Katha Medimix India Rs. 21,12,301 v.TVC Skyshop Ltd. Rs. 25,781 vi. Vinod Singh [(prop. Khyati communication Ltd.)] Rs. 2,85,200 vii. Ortel Communication ltd. Rs. 1,58,400 viii. Optis Hotels

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

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

68,353 ii. Onscreen Broadcasting & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd Rs. 1,15,127 iii. Geetanjali Gems ltd. Rs. 4,55,192 iv.Katha Medimix India Rs. 21,12,301 v.TVC Skyshop Ltd. Rs. 25,781 vi. Vinod Singh [(prop. Khyati communication Ltd.)] Rs. 2,85,200 vii. Ortel Communication ltd. Rs. 1,58,400 viii. Optis Hotels

M/S UNIHEALTH CONSULTANCY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8 (3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Unihealth Consultancy Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(3)(1), H-13 & H-14 Everest, 9Th Floor, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Tardeo Road, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcu 1551 C Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in relation to the addition of relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in relation to the addition of relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in relation to the addition of Rs.4,09,70,600/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act is reproduced

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RUBBERWALA REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to\n2021-22 stands allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19\nstands dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on this ...

Section 68 of the Act. We, thus,\nset aside the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of\nRs.25,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act.\n4.16 In view of the above reasoning therefore, we are of the\nconsidered view that the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- sustained by the\nLd. CIT(A) u/s 68

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

M/S ANKUR DEVELOPERS & REALTORS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 131 on 24.03.2014, admitted that the impugned loans were mere accommodation entries procured against cash payments. The relevant part of statement is reproduced as under: “Q.4. In your statement recorded on oath during search action u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Ankur Shubham Developers, M/s. Micro Ankur Developers, M/s. Sahaj Ankur Developers

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 143(3) of the Act. Total income assessed by Assessing Officer as per Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act: Amount Sr Particulars (Rs.) Income As Per Return 74,44,000/ 1. Addition on account of Unexplained cash credit 10,72,20,000/- u/s 68 2. Addition on account of Unexplained cash credit