DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

section 68 of the Act, the\nAssessee is required to explain the nature and also the source of\nthe credit appearing in its books. The explanation offered by the\nAssessee is, in his opinion is not satisfactory and therefore, the sum\nso credited may be charged to income tax, as the income of the\nAssessee of that previous year

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

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

section 68 of the\nAct.\n10. In the present case, the AO arbitrarily concluded the\nhearing and even made the additions even in respect of the\ninvestors for which the copies of director report, balance sheet,\nshare application forms, etc. were filed during the course of\nassessment proceedings. In this regard, the Appellant relies on\nthe following decisions:\nNathu

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. 4.6 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an a Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ppeal before the ld CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reassessment ld CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reassessment ld CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HIRA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhriassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.126, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Hira Technologies Private Limited Plot No.1, Part-Ii, Khed City Taluka Khed, Rajgurunagar Pune, Dta Village, ……………. Respondent Khanesar, Pune – 410505 Pan: Aabch2291N

68 of the Act on account of share application money/premium money received by the assessee from the foreign investors. 3 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and others. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income

NISA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

section 68 of the Act. 6. By relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT versus Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and Sumati Dayal versus CIT (214

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 68 11 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases extensively and referred to the bogus sham transaction and Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in this regard. Thereafter the Assessing Officer referred to Special Investigation wing report on black money. Thereafter he referred to the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 68 11 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases extensively and referred to the bogus sham transaction and Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in this regard. Thereafter the Assessing Officer referred to Special Investigation wing report on black money. Thereafter he referred to the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT

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

214 ITR 801) held that if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof of any sum credited in the books of accounts are not satisfactory, then the same is chargeable to tax as income of the assessee. The proviso to 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)

214 (Karnataka). 6 Kamal Vyas "Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment Year 1995-96 - Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to interests of revenue [In favour of assessee]. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests

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. 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

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)

Section 68 for LTCG on penny stocks was deleted. The appellant contended that since SEBI did not specifically name him in any fraud report, the AO's reliance on general findings was unjustified. However, the AO distinguished the appellant's case from that decision, stating that each case must be examined on its own facts. In the present case

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

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

214 ITR 801(SC) has held genuineness could validity be tested on the ground or principle of preponderance of human possibilities which form a valid ground or parameter for determining the genuineness." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, income from house property and income from other sources

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:

section is very widely worded and an ITO is not precluded from making an enquiry as to the true nature and source thereof even if the same is credited as receipt of share application money. ……..On the basis of the language used under s. 68 and the various decisions of different High Courts and the apex Court, the only