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 merely relying on the statement of an alleged entry operator where identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of transaction was proved. 8. It is a settled law that it is mandatory for the Ld. AO to confront the assessee with any material collected by the Assessing Officer at the back of the assessee, and in case

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. (8) CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/115 Taxman 99 (SC) where the Supreme Court held that even if it was argued that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

245,908/-. It resulted into an addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the act of ₹ 101,445,908/- and unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

245,908/-. It resulted into an addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the act of ₹ 101,445,908/- and unexplained

BHISHMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

245,908/-. It resulted into an addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the act of ₹ 101,445,908/- and unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

245,908/-. It resulted into an addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the act of ₹ 101,445,908/- and unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

245,908/-. It resulted into an addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the act of ₹ 101,445,908/- and unexplained

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

245/- difference in Net Profit on entire sale vis-à- ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. vis Net Profit on this sale without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted documentary evidence of actual delivery and sale of the Gold." 3. "The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5

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

245/- difference in Net Profit on entire sale vis-à- ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. vis Net Profit on this sale without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted documentary evidence of actual delivery and sale of the Gold." 3. "The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5

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 would lead to double taxation of the said income even though exempt agricultural income is exempt vi. Similar agricultural income has been accepted in the case of her late husband for assessment year 11-12 vii. it was therefore prayed that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT[ appeal] was erroneous

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

ITO 6 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S CONFIANCE TRADING PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 6(2)(1), M/S. Confiance Trading 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.510, 308, Adharu Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, M.K. Road, Sun Mill Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaccc4316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmvir, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R D E R

245) also considered the similar facts and held as under: “We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

245,908/-. It resulted into an addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the act of 101,445,908/- and unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

245,908/-. It resulted into an addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the act of 101,445,908/- and unexplained

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

68 of the Act. 13.1. In appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer by adopting the reasoning given while confirming ITA No.787-790/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 addition for the Assessment Year 2010-11; and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant vide common order dated 06/02/2023. 13.2. Being aggrieved, the Appellant

DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. AHINSA INFRASTUCTURE & DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

68 only to 'books maintained for any previous year'. Under general law and otherwise also, there is a vast difference between the word 'book' and the words 'loose paper, bothare not synonymous. In this regard, the ratio of the decisions in the case of Common Cause ( A Registered Society) &Ors. v/s. UOI &Ors. - [W.P. (Civil) No. 505 of 2015, Order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

68,030/- has been incorporated as taxable income by the assessee in the ITR filed besides its regular income for the year under consideration." We are in agreement with Ld. DR that the Ld. AO has simply stated that the assessee has incorporated the excess-cash and excess-stock in the ITR. Needless to mention that the function of assessing

JCIT OSD-CC-7(4), MUMBAI vs. SHALIMAR HOUSEING FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 4112 & 4083/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-Cc-7(4) Vs. M/S. Shalimar Housing Room No. 659, Aaykar & Finance Ltd., Bhavan, Mk Road, 505, Shalimar Morya Mumbai – 400020. Park, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs6732N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B.K.Bagchi.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 06.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

Section 68 is not applicable to the credits from Unsecured Loans/ Borrowings. 7) Most of the loans have been repaid in the next year within a short period of time by the Appellant. Refer Chart on page. to - In view of the above, we submit the additions made U/s. 68 is highly unjustified and may be deleted

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. SURESH GURUBUXSING WADHWA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

section the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee. Amount appearing in the books of a/cs. Of the assessee is considered a proof against him. He can prove the identity of the creditors by either furnishing their PANs or assessment orders. Similarly, genuineness of the transaction can be proved by showing that the money was received