ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

202 Taxman 10 (Mag.) / 13 taxmann.com. 114 (Delhi), the position was clarified by the Court and it was held: "It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

202 Taxman 10 (Mag.) / 13 taxmann.com. 114 (Delhi), the position was clarified by the Court and it was held: "It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed complete details of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed complete details of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed complete details of the share subscribers which were forward of the share subscribers which were forwarded

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

202 Taxman 10 (Mag./13 taxmann.com. 114 (Delhi), the position was clarified by the Court and it was held: “It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68

DCIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. EDESK SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7113/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 6(2)(2) M/S. Edesk Services Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-A, Lalwani Indl. Estate M.K Road, Churchgate, 14, G.D. Ambekar Road, V. Mumbai 400020 Wadala, Mumbai 400031 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcb5087H

Section 68 will get invoked when any sum is found credited in books of accounts which could be a credit entry appearing towards payable to creditors for purchases made by the tax-payer. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of V.I.S.P. Private Limited v. CIT(2004) 265 ITR 202

SAPTARSHI REALTORS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 8 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Aaykar Bhavan, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Paral Village, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6828M Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Paral Village, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Advocate Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024

202 taxmann 262 and other coordinate bench decision is holding that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. ii. On the merits of the case, on the addition under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the 1961 Act and the appellate order 29 passed by learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained in view of our aforesaid detailed observations. Thus, under these circumstances we hereby confirm additions to the tune of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- as were made by the Assessing Officer and set aside the appellate order passed

K.B. J JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

68, when the enquiry pertained only to Section 263. In Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Road Transport Appellate Tribunal , the Supreme Court had referred to an essay by Professor A.L. Goodhart for the proposition that the ratio decideni of a case is determined by taking into account the facts treated by the Judge deciding the case

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 ...

202 (Ahd.), it was held that if an\noverall estimate of income has been made, there would not\nbe any scope for applying the prescription of section\n40A(3) of the Act.When a provision of law is to be applied,\nit is to be seen that all the circumstances alliunde to the\napplication of such provision did exist

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAY BHARAT MEHTA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

202/- (being 50% of claim of INR.11,90,38,405/- made under Section 54F of the Act) observing that the Assessee was joint owner of the residential house purchased alongwith his wife and therefore, the Assessee held only 50% share in the aforesaid new residential house. However, the Assessing Officer recorded that no separate addition was being made

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

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

ADDL CIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI vs. SARASWATI DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

section 68 of the Act could be applied to the impugned credits, or the same includes only cash credits within its purview, for which, i.e., the latter proposition, reliance stands also placed by the assessee on CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), even as the decision in the case of V.I.S.P

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A and Rule 8D on earning this income. Q.No.30. Furnish details of Long term capital gains. Q.No.38. Furnish details of loss incurred on redeeming preference shares. 3.2. We find that assessee had duly replied to these questionnaires vide its letter dated 28/10/2015 responding to various queries raised by the assessee more particularly the specific queries

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

202 ITR 354) (refer Exhibit H of Case Laws Compilation'), wherein it has been held that though dividend income was taxable at concessional rate of tax, the assessee is liable to first set off its loss under one head of income against income from other head of income u/s. 71 of the Act and only the balance loss available after

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. M/S.RE N RAGA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

section 143(3) vide; {Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT,(1954)26 ITR 775,782(SC); Raj Mohan Saha v. CIT, (1964)52 ITR 231 (Assam). Also see, CIT V. Gokaldas Hukumchand, (1943)11 ITR 462,469(Bom) … … 3.16 Recently, in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd [ INCOME TAX APPEAL N0.1613 OF 2014] it was held

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NANUBHAI N DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

202, 2nd floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 3, Aashirwad 51, Vallabh Vs. BKC, Bandra (E) Nagar N.S. Road No. 2, JVPD Mumbai-400051. Scheme Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400056. PAN NO. ADNPD 9241 N Appellant Respondent : Dr. Tusharkumar Desai Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/05/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

ASST.CIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NANUBHAI N DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

202, 2nd floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 3, Aashirwad 51, Vallabh Vs. BKC, Bandra (E) Nagar N.S. Road No. 2, JVPD Mumbai-400051. Scheme Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400056. PAN NO. ADNPD 9241 N Appellant Respondent : Dr. Tusharkumar Desai Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/05/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

RAKESH JAYANTILAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

68, read with sections 144 and 147, of the IT Appeal No. 202 Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit