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:

234 (Mum) has enumerated certain legal principles regarding cash credits u/s 68 as under: A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj a) Section

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 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:

234 (Mum) has enumerated certain legal principles regarding cash credits u/s 68 as under: A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj a) Section

RAJKUMARI ASHOK THAKUR,PALGHAR vs. CIT APPEAL , DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Nfac, Delhi Rajkumari Ashok Thakur Vaishali Deshi Bar Juna Palghar, Near St Depot, Maharashtra – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Akwpt9344C (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 68 does not apply to her where no books are not liable to be maintained 6) The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s 234

GAURAV ABHAY CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

VISHWAS SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

GAUTAM ASHOK CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

ASHISH SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

section 56(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.5.5 the following guiding factors laid down by various courts have been considered in concluding that the amounts received by assesse are taxable in the hands of assessee under the head income from the other sources: There must be an identification sources - Before a particular amount can be characterized

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EVERGREEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Room No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ……………. Appellant V/S Evergreen Financial Services, Kanakia Future City, Cts 101, Behind Dr. L H Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai-400093. ……………. Respondent Pan : Aabfe 9028 R

68 10,13,50,000 (ii) Considering the non-genuineness of the loan transactions, the following interest expenditure on the loan, taken during the year and in the earlier year, was held to be non-genuine and was disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act: - Name of the lender Interest amount M/s Sigma Commodities Private Limited

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit on the basis that the net worth of this company is negligible as per its financials but the share price was rigged to an astronomical level. The AO also placed reliance upon the statement of Mr. Anil Agarwal who admitted that the scrips of this company were, inter-alia

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit on the basis that the net worth of this company is negligible as per its financials but the share price was rigged to an astronomical level. The AO also placed reliance upon the statement of Mr. Anil Agarwal who admitted that the scrips of this company were, inter-alia

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit on the basis that the net worth of this company is negligible as per its financials but the share price was rigged to an astronomical level. The AO also placed reliance upon the statement of Mr. Anil Agarwal who admitted that the scrips of this company were, inter-alia

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit on the basis that the net worth of this company is negligible as per its financials but the share price was rigged to an astronomical level. The AO also placed reliance upon the statement of Mr. Anil Agarwal who admitted that the scrips of this company were, inter-alia

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit on the basis that the net worth of this company is negligible as per its financials but the share price was rigged to an astronomical level. The AO also placed reliance upon the statement of Mr. Anil Agarwal who admitted that the scrips of this company were, inter-alia

ACIT C.C. -13, CENT. RG.-3, MUMBAI vs. M/S. KRISHIRAJ TRADING LTD (NOW MERGEED WITH MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PVT. LTYD, MUMBAI

234/- on borrowed funds by it. Therefore, the Assessee was asked to show cause vide notice, dated 9/03/2016, issued under section 142(1) of the Act as to why the loan amount of INR 1,00,25,000/- received from the Lender should not be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68

ITO-41(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. RAMANLAL AGARWAL (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is\ndismissed

section 68 is meant for share\ncapital transactions also been explained by, the CBDT\nexplaining Finance Act, 2012.\nAccording to the Appellant, by submitting, balance sheets filed\nby the lenders along with their income returns, it has more\nthan sufficiently discharged its primary or establishing the fact\nthat the Lenders had means on their hands to lend moneys

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI vs. CALVIN PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

234, बिधम/ Patkarwadi, S. V. Road, Matru Mandit, Tardeo Vs. Bandra (west), Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAGFC2218L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.02.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep

MR.BHAVIN VAGHASIA(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KANUBHAI VAGHASIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KALYAN

Appeal is allowed

68 of the Act by treating the transaction of sale of shares of Sunrise Asian as a bogus penny stock transaction. 22.2 According to the Investigation Report, penny stock transactions generally involved the following persons: (i) Syndicate Members are generally promoters of penny stock companies owing initial share holding in the name of paper companies. 13 ITA. No. 2584/Mum/2018 Assessment

DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. OM SAGAR ENGINEERING P. LTD, MUMBAI

section 68 of the Act talked about nature of the transaction, that the premiums charged by the assessee was abnormal, that the AO had rightly made the addition to the total income of the assessee. The Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the assessee had obtained valution report from an authorised person,that the shares were purchased by the existing