IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

M/S.FROHAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the Act are applicable to a case of money credited in the books of accounts of the assessee and not to a barter system for discharge of consideration. In defence of his argument the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. ITO vs. Bhagwat Markcom (P) Ltd. 109 taxmann.com 330 (Kolkata – Trib

MAHENDRA H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD- 4 (1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act is bad in law." It is not out of place to bring under your honours kind notice, that the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act by submitting the number of documentary evidences during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to demonstrate

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

MADHURIBEN VYAS (DECD),MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this account itself the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. I hold so.” We further find that a similar view had also been arrived at in a ‘third member’ decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (2011) 10 taxmann.com 206

DCIT, CIRCLE.6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

Section 68 of the Act that, the initial burden is on the assessee to discharge that the credit received by it is from the sources whose identity can be proved, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the investor is also established by supporting relevant material/ documentary evidences. If the assessee presents all these details during

CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE .6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

Section 68 of the Act that, the initial burden is on the assessee to discharge that the credit received by it is from the sources whose identity can be proved, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the investor is also established by supporting relevant material/ documentary evidences. If the assessee presents all these details during

ITO-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SETHIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise.” It has been held that merely proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity

MADHAVPRASAD GOVINDRAM JALAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Madhavprasad Govindram Ito-10(1)(3), Jalan, 206, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Vs. A/1305, 13Th Floor Oberoi Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Exquisite, Oberoi Garden City Road, Goregaon-E, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aakpm 0750 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sheshank Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr

206, 2nd floor, Aayakar Vs. A/1305, 13th floor Oberoi Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Exquisite, Oberoi Garden City Road, Goregaon-E, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400063. PAN No. AAKPM 0750 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sheshank Mehta, AR Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, DR : Date of Hearing 30/01/2023 : Date of pronouncement 23/02/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal

SARVESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer observed loans received of observed loans received of ₹25,00,000/- from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited (in short “Karishma”) (in short “Karishma”), ₹35,00,000/- from M/s Parasnath from M/s Parasnath Gems private limited private limited (in short “Paraswnath

SARVESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC -2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer observed loans received of observed loans received of ₹25,00,000/- from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited (in short “Karishma”) (in short “Karishma”), ₹35,00,000/- from M/s Parasnath from M/s Parasnath Gems private limited private limited (in short “Paraswnath

SARVESH MERCANTILE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer observed loans received of observed loans received of ₹25,00,000/- from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited from M/s Karishma diamonds private limited (in short “Karishma”) (in short “Karishma”), ₹35,00,000/- from M/s Parasnath from M/s Parasnath Gems private limited private limited (in short “Paraswnath

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

68 is applicable for resident investor only. Section 56(2Xvib) was not applicable not applicable for AY 2012-13 as the said section was introduced w.e. the said section was introduced w.e.f A.Y 2013-14. Vide 14. Vide notification No. 45 / 2016 dated 14.06.2016. The notification No. 45 / 2016 dated 14.06.2016. The assessee has relied

DINESHKUMAR VERMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KALYAN

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1183/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Dineshkumar Verma, 102, Sai Aashram Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Tejumal Chaki Road, Nr. Sadhubela School, Ulhasnagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Tahane 421 001 Pan : Acmpv 7468B बनाम/ Vs.

206 (Guwahati)(TM) (3) Manasi Mahendra Pitkar vs. ITO 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai – Trib.) (4) Kokarre Prabhakara vs. ITO, ITA 1239/Bang/2019 DoD 11/09/2020 2.2. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee asserted that although the provisions of section 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

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

206\n75/- and further the commission at the rate of 1.25% on such sum\nshould also be made on substantive basis. Based on this, the learned\nassessing officer made an addition under section 68

DCIT- 10 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. OPERA INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

68 of the Act. Further, the A.O. disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 1,11,167/- corresponding to the bogus/sham transactions of unsecured loans amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000/- which were held to be non-genuine. The A.O. also disallowed commission paid of Rs.2,55,000/- (being 1.5% of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-) in relation to sham transaction

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, relying on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); CIT vs. M. Ganapati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) (refer Ground 3 of the Appeal), the assessee’s case, relying