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

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

section 68 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is by way of the appeal before the Tribunal whereas, the assessee has raised cross objections. 5. Before us, the assessee has filed paperbook into volumes containing pages 1-191 and 192 to 248

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

68 on account of allegation of accommodation entry. Your Honour would appreciate that the Id. Assessing Officer has relied on the information given by the DGIT (Inv.) without appreciating that the same cannot be used against the appellant without providing statements wherein the alleged party has stated that he has provided accommodation entry to the appellant and therefore such statements

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) of the Act:-  Copy of share allotment  Copies of sale bills  Copy of bank statement  Copy of demat account  Copy of contract notes Page No. 24 Udayan Grover xx. At the Bombay Stock Exchange, the price of the shares of M/s Greencrest Financial Services Limited had continuously been in the range of Rs. 9 - 248

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, on account of sale of shares\nin the case of both the assessees. The consequential addition u/s 69C is also deleted.\nAccordingly both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.\n7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nKolkata, the 25th day of July, 2018.\nSd/-\n[J. Sudhakar Reddy]\nAccountant Member\nDated

ITO-33(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S URVI REALTORS, MUMBAI

248 4. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the above lenders. However, reply was received only from M/s Rajat Diamonds Exim Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee was asked to show cause as to why the unsecured loans should not be treated as unsecured cash credits in terms of Section 68

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

68. 4.10 The operator The appellant has denied the connection with the exit provider in the statement recorded u/s 131. The Learned Assessing officer has stated that statement of said operator recorded u/s 132(4) at the back of the assesse and no copies of his statement were given to the appellant. Further no incriminating document was found in respect

FAIYAZ YUNUS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Faiyaz Yunus Patel, Ito-27(1)(4), Flat No. 602, Vmk Chs, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Tower Vs. Lbs Marg, Chirag Nagar, No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Akxpp 9040 L Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act is not justified. 3.1. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand tmental Representative (DR) on the other hand tmental Representative (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 3.2. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused

DHANRAJ MILLS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD)-II CEN RG-7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 68 of the Act, finance charges and interest income. Our attention was invited to various pages of the assessment order, specifically para-2 and 2.4. Reliance was placed upon the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (Karn.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIKAS PROMOTERS

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

248 of the Act and held that the transponder service fees payable by the assessee to Intelsat UK are not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK DTAA, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax from such payments under section 195 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

248 of the Act and held that the transponder service fees payable by the assessee to Intelsat UK are not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK DTAA, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax from such payments under section 195 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

248 of the Act and held that the transponder service fees payable by the assessee to Intelsat UK are not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK DTAA, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax from such payments under section 195 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

248 of\nthe Act and held that the transponder service fees payable by the assessee to\nIntelsat UK are not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK\nDTAA, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax from such\npayments under section 195 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in\nappeal before

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

248 of\nthe Act and held that the transponder service fees payable by the assessee to\nIntelsat UK are not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK\nDTAA, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax from such\npayments under section 195 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in\nappeal before

VINOD L. GADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC5(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Act, being the identity and genuineness of the transaction and the other aspect being credit worthiness is strictly not necessary, because the sum received towards sale of shares is neither a loan nor a credit. Therefore, the transaction is required to be tested under first two limbs, i.e. the identity and the genuineness of the transaction

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

248 of\nthe Act and held that the transponder service fees payable by the assessee to\nIntelsat UK are not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK\nDTAA, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax from such\npayments under section 195 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in\nappeal before

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

248 of\nthe Act and held that the transponder service fees payable by the assessee to\nIntelsat UK are not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK\nDTAA, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to withhold tax from such\npayments under section 195 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in\nappeal before