DCIT-CC 5(2), CENTRAL RANGE 5, MUMBAI vs. M/S JET PRIVILEGE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 68 questioning the genuineness of the transaction. In this regard, the Ld.DR drew our attention to the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer which is extracted below:- “5.2 Further, on perusal of the aforesaid chart, it is seen that the assessee company has issued shares to Etihad Airways & Shri Apurva Shah at a premium which is well above

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

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREEDHAM BUILDERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will

ITO -13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHWA VYAPAR TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

section 68, the addition made of Rs 1,71,50,000/- u/s 68 in the case of the appellant is deleted. The grounds of appeal is allowed as above.” 15. None of the above findings have been controverted with evidences. 16. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of MOD Creations

M/S SWARGAMRUT DAIRY PRV LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 11(2)(2) 113, 1St Chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 Pan: Aalcs3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department By : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not traced and in respect of some of the parties

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68 casts liability on assesse - the assessee has to prove assessee has to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received amounts of cash received during the accounting year and if not, the ITO accounting year and if not, the ITO is entitled to draw the inference

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68 casts liability on assesse - the assessee has to prove assessee has to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received amounts of cash received during the accounting year and if not, the ITO accounting year and if not, the ITO is entitled to draw the inference

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. EVEREST AANGAN PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., Tax – 15(1)(1) Shop No. 30, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Runwal Commercial Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan: Aabce 6428 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Chothani Department By : Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI JOITKUMAR B. JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not traced and in respect of some of the parties

ACIT - 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. R&B INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

68 of the Act, ignoring the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195, CIT vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. Nova Promotors & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169/206 from Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 2. During hearing of this appeal, Shri Rajendra Kumar, learned DR, explained that

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Innovative Construction Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 12(2)(2) 1St Floor, Samir Complex Room No. 145, 1St Floor St. Andrews Road, Bandra (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400050 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaaci1573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh A. Thar Department By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

246)(TChd)(2019) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the issue may be decided in view of Para No. 4 of the CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2019 dated 19.06.2019. 4 M/s. Innovative Construction Pvt. Ltd., 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Circular No. 11/2019 [F.NO.225/45/2019-ITA.II], DATED

M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {Corresponding to section 23(4) read with sections 27 and 30 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922] - Best judgment assessment - Assessees were assessed under section 23(4) of 1922 Act on their failure to submit certain account books — No application under section 27 of 1922 Act was filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. M/S.RE N RAGA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not traced and in respect of some of the parties

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

246 between 1-6-1994, to 31-5-1999, and under section 264 between 1- 10-1991, and 31-5-1999. It is to be noted that the expressions "intimation" and "assessment order" have been used at different places. The contextual difference between the two expressions has to be understood in the context the expressions are used. Assessment

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. The same was amended by the 2nd Amendment Act; w.e.f. 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there was no new liability created and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the assessments carried on in that year. The enhanced rate applies from the commencement of the assessment year

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Vasupujya Filaments (batch appeals) 4. Before us, the Learned counsel for the assessee has stated the facts and the background of the case as culled out from the impugned order and material on record in the following manner: 3. The statement of Shri Bhadresh M. Dodhia was recorded during the course

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Vasupujya Filaments (batch appeals) 4. Before us, the Learned counsel for the assessee has stated the facts and the background of the case as culled out from the impugned order and material on record in the following manner: 3. The statement of Shri Bhadresh M. Dodhia was recorded during the course