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 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148 ; (iii) the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other

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

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

section 143(3). That reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 and other Judgements of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Delhi and Bombay ITAT. 20. As regards addition u/s. 68 of the Act for long term capital gain

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

The appeal stands dismissed

section 143(3). That reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 and other Judgements of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Delhi and Bombay ITAT. 20. As regards addition u/s. 68 of the Act for long term capital gain

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

68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the paper book filed by the assessee, we find that

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

68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the paper book filed by the assessee, we find that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI YOGENDRA KANODIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-Cc-5(4), Vs. Mrs.Rashmiyogendra Room No.1924,19Th Kanodia(Legal Heir Of Floor, Air Late Shri Yogendra Indiabuilding, Surajmal Kanodia) Nariman Point, 1 St Floor,Samudra Mumbai-400021. Tarang, Keluskarroad, Northshivajipark,Dadar, Mumbai-400028. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpk4863A Appellant .. Respondent

220 3 Yogendra Kanodia from VR of 2002 - 32,65,268 4.Siddharth Kanodia from VR of 2002 - 12,69,232 5 Yogendra Kanodia HUF from VR of 2002 - 30,06,102 6.Nishant Kanodia from VR of 2002 - 5,96,009 7Combined Gold Chains, EaringsTopsBangles matched Jewellery from Valuation reports of 2002 of RYK, YSKYSK HUFSYK

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing of this appeal, Shri Hari Raheja, ld. counsel for the assessee, explained that confirmations were filed by the assessee and has no direct relation with Swan Securities, the Directors are not common, the reserves are to the tune of Rs.1.46 crores besides share capital of Rs.30.57 lakhs

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 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance

BARCELONA MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. WARD 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence

RAMNARAYAN B GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2527/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ramnarayan Babulal Gupta, बनधम/ Income Tax Officer -8(2)(2), Mumbai.. A-206, Winsway Complex, Vs. Old Police Line, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Ajhpg7063P Appellant By Shri Chetan V Pabari Respondent By Smt.Anu K Aggarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :05.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.1.2014, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Confirming The Addition Of Rs.29,54,385/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 3.09.2010 Declaring A Total Income At Rs.2,07,110/- Out Of Salary Income. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under The Cass & Accordingly Statutory Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Dated

section 143(2) and 142(1) dated 2 24.8.2011 were issued and served upon the assessee calling upon certain details and information. The case of the assessee was adjourned from time to time at the request of the ld AR of the assessee but the assessee did not appear the AO. Finaly the AO issued show cause notice

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

INDUCTO STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Inducto Steel Limited The Acit-3(2)(1) 156, Maker Chambers Vi Aayakar Bhavan 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Vs. M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai-40 0020. Mumbai-400 021. Pan : Aaach1045E Appellant Respondent

220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Vs. M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai-40 0020. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AAACH1045E Appellant Respondent : Shri Reepal Tralshawala Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Thakwani Revenue by : 27/03/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 26/06/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In this appeal, the only addition made by the Ld. AO and contested

SAMSARA SHIPPING PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsamsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 101/102, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Chakala Midc S.O., Mumbai Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 9285 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Shri Sagar Joshi Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025 Of Addl./Jcit(A), Panchkula, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In The Appeal Is Concerning Levy Of Interest U/S. 220(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short). Of Course, Vide Letter Dated 17.12.2025 The Assessee Has Sought To Raise An Additional Ground, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act On Account Of Non-Mentioning Of Document Identification Number (Din). Be That As It May, We Propose To Deal The Issue On Merits.

68,25,359/-. After completing the assessment as aforesaid, the A.O. issued the assessment order along with the demand notice dated 22.12.2022, in terms of section 156 of the Act, mentioning “zero” document. Thereafter, the A.O., based on objection raised by the Revenue audit party, having found that while computing the tax liability, total income was mistakenly taken

RUBBERWALA HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5 (3)91), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

220 Taxman 138 (All.) ln the case of Lalpuria Construction P. Ltd (supra) the Hon. Rajasthan High Court has held that "that in the case of Accommodation entry – without giving an opportunity of cross examination merely on the basis of oral statement additions cannot be made u/s. 68. It is further held that: “The oral statement of a third party

ITO 14(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. NEXTGEN CONSTRUCTIONS P.TLD (CHANGED TO M/S AETIUS CONSTRUCTION P. LTD WHICH IS FURTHER AMALGAMATED WITH M/S SUPERGOLD PROPERTIES PVT. LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence