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-15(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRAVIR POLYMERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act are (i) Identity of the creditor; (ii) Creditworthiness of the creditor; and ill) Genuineness of the transaction. “5.3 It is imperative to mention here the background of reopening of assessment in the present case before proceeding further. A search & survey action was carried out in the case of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 68 will came into effect. Thus there is no provision when the goods purchased in credit will amount to cash credit. Further I find that the A.O. has accepted the purchases as genuine and also nowhere objected to the sale consideration shown by the appellant company, which was subjected to statutory Audit u/s 44AB of the Act. Further

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 the Assessing Officer has relied on the figures as appearing in the books of account. 10.5. The appellants further, submit that unless any specific defects are pointed out in the books of account by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be summarily rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions

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 the Assessing Officer has relied on the figures as appearing in the books of account. 10.5. The appellants further, submit that unless any specific defects are pointed out in the books of account by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be summarily rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions

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 of the Act. The assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208

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

68 of the Act, being a sham transaction". 2. "On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,04,90,000/- without appreciating the fact that the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the party M/s. Varaad Ventures Ltd., which subscribed to the Shares was not satisfactorily

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

section (2A)] and proposed to be utilised for the purpose of the assessment." Since, the appellant has not been provided with the statements of the alleged entry providers on the basis of which the Id. A.O. has placed reliance to treat the alleged unsecured loans received as sham transactions, no conclusion could have been taken

DCIT - CC -3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALKALASH TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the assessing officer [CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd., 1993 SCC OnLine Cal 384: (1994) 208

JUHI ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 28(1), NAVI 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 Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the present Act is statutorily authorized an Assessing Officer to assess of the present Act is statutorily authorized an Assessing Officer to assess of the present Act is statutorily authorized an Assessing Officer to assess the unexplained cash credit as I the unexplained cash credit as Income and add back to the total income ncome and add back

DCIT, CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HETAL N. SHAH (LEAGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI NITIN RAJMAL SHAH) , MUMBAI

In the result, we admit the appeal of the AO as it has been replaced by bringing the legal heir of deceased assessee on record but dismissed the appeal on the merits of the addition

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Hetal Nitin Shah Dcit Legal Heir Of Nitin Rajmal Central Circle 5(1) Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Shah Air India Building, 301, Chandramani, Vs. Nariman Point, Hanuman Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadps5476M Assessee By : Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2024

Section 68 of the Act. The Assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. MANU/WB/0087/1993 : (1994) 208

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

208-09, I have even offered to have my business income determined on any reasonable estimated basis in absence of proper records in my hand, which offer was not accepted. All these actions should also show that I am a person who is earnest in getting my tax assesii1s resolved amicably and not allowing the same to linger. I, therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 133(6), Income tax return copy, bank statements, ledger statements, source of funds and all the loan interest was paid and TDS was also deducted. Here also AO had doubted their creditworthiness in extending their loan. I had examined bank statement, source of funds and net worth of above persons. Networth of the above persons is as under

DY CIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LEENA POOWER TECH ENGINEERS P LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

section 68 in respect of share subscriptions can be upheld. A reference was made to the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd [(2012) 210 Taxman 14], Suman Gupta Vs ITO [(2012) 25 txamnn.com 220 (Agra)], CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)], CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd [(1994) 208

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

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

M/S GARWARE SYNTHETICS LIMITED,MIRA ROAD vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-15 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodgarware Synthetics Limited Vs. Acit,Circle-15(1)(2) Manish Textile Ind. Premises Aaykar Bhawan Opp. Golden Chemicals M.K.Road Penkar Pada, Post Mira Mumbai-400 020 Thane-401 104 Pan/Gir No.Aaacg4208M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the appellant must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In this case, the appellant was required to explain the unsecured loans and prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender party. However

ACIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJESH C. SAVLA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Cir. 29(3), Shri Rajesh G. Savla, Room No. 208, C-10, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 601 & 602, Highland Park, Jai Prathashakarbhavan, Bandrakurla Shastri Nagar, Mulund Colony, Complex, Bandra (East), Mulund (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400082. Pan No. Aagps 8223 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Avneesh Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2021

208, C-10, 2nd floor, Vs. 601 & 602, Highland Park, Jai PrathashakarBhavan, BandraKurla Shastri Nagar, Mulund Colony, Complex, Bandra (East), Mulund (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400082. PAN No. AAGPS 8223 H Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Avneesh Tiwari, DR Assessee by : Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, AR Date of Hearing : 12/10/2021 Date of pronouncement : 16/12/2021 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM. This