RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 19.03.2024. Since common issue on identical facts are involved in these appeals therefore, both these appeals are adjudicated together as follows: A.Y. 2018-19 ITA 2826/M/2024 (Revenue Appeal) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

4. a) On the facts and circumstances a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000 under Section 68

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

4. a) On the facts and circumstances a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000 under Section 68

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

4), Mumbai\nAppellant\nv/s\nShri Renukamata Multi-State Co-operative\nUrban Credit Society Ltd., 335/2AB\nBehind Pushpak Hotel, Pipe Line Road\nSavedi, Ahmednagar 414 003\nPAN - AADAS7782D\nRespondent\nAssessee by :Shri Dharmendra Kansara\nRevenue by : Ms. Mahita Nair\nDate of Hearing –21/06/2024\nDate of Order –30/07/2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH\nThe present cross-appeals have been filed challenging the separate\nimpugned

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

4), Mumbai\nAppellant\nv/s\nShri Renukamata Multi-State Co-operative\nUrban Credit Society Ltd., 335/2AB\nBehind Pushpak Hotel, Pipe Line Road\nSavedi, Ahmednagar 414 003\nPAN - AADAS7782D\nRespondent\n\nAssessee by :Shri Dharmendra Kansara\nRevenue by : Ms. Mahita Nair\n\nDate of Hearing –21/06/2024\nDate of Order –30/07/2024\n\nORDER\nPER BENCH\nThe present cross-appeals have been filed challenging

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

4), Mumbai\nAppellant\nv/s\nShri Renukamata Multi-State Co-operative\nUrban Credit Society Ltd., 335/2AB\nBehind Pushpak Hotel, Pipe Line Road\nSavedi, Ahmednagar 414 003\nPAN - AADAS7782D\nRespondent\nAssessee by :Shri Dharmendra Kansara\nRevenue by : Ms. Mahita Nair\nDate of Hearing –21/06/2024\nDate of Order –30/07/2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH\nThe present cross-appeals have been filed challenging the separate\nimpugned

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

4), Mumbai\nAppellant\nv/s\nShri Renukamata Multi-State Co-operative\nUrban Credit Society Ltd., 335/2AB\nBehind Pushpak Hotel, Pipe Line Road\nSavedi, Ahmednagar 414 003\nPAN - AADAS7782D\nRespondent\nAssessee by :Shri Dharmendra Kansara\nRevenue by : Ms. Mahita Nair\nDate of Hearing –21/06/2024\nDate of Order –30/07/2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH\nThe present cross-appeals have been filed challenging the separate\nimpugned

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), by the\nNational Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the\n assessment year 2017-18. The following grounds have been\nraised by assessee.\n1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.3,49,00,000/- as\ncash deposited in the bank during demonetization period u/s 68\ntreating

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

250 Cyprus Ltd. 50,50,000 22,27,23,750 Total(A) 3.8. If the impact of above entries is analyzed in the light of section 68 of the Act vis-à-vis section 106 of the evidence Act. As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast

ITO-12(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. GRD STEELINDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito-12(2)(3), M/S Grd Steel Industries Private Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. 203, Tirupati Udyog, I B Patel Road, Mumbai-400020. Off W E Highway Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaccn 8254 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Haresh P. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

4) of Section 250. That is a consequence which cannot at all be countenanc That is a consequence which cannot at all be countenanced. ed. 25. For the above reasons, we answer the substantial questions For the above reasons, we answer the substantial questions For the above reasons, we answer the substantial questions of law framed in paragraph

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

250 ITR 871 2 (SC), the issue was whether on dissolution or death of one partner and reconstitution with the remaining partners without discontinuance of business how the valuation on the closing stock should be done. This judgment again in our opinion, also does not assist us in consideration of the issue which is before us. In Sunil Siddharthbhai/Kartikeya

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

250 ITR 871 2 (SC), the issue was whether on dissolution or death of one partner and reconstitution with the remaining partners without discontinuance of business how the valuation on the closing stock should be done. This judgment again in our opinion, also does not assist us in consideration of the issue which is before us. In Sunil Siddharthbhai/Kartikeya

ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI vs. RAHUL KANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 6805 /Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13 ) Ito- 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Patel Road, Mumbai -400051. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed The By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-77, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

250(4) and (5) read with sub- rule(4) of rule 46A. 7.3 In the present case, the details submitted by the appellant are crucial to the grounds raised in appeal. The impugned order and remand reports do not contain any details to controvert the assertion of the appellant nor do they bring on record -anything to establish that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

68 by the AO by furnishing details of the cast upon him u/s 68 by the AO by furnishing details of the cast upon him u/s 68 by the AO by furnishing details of the identity, credit worthiness of the le identity, credit worthiness of the lenders and the genuineness nders and the genuineness of the loan transaction. In other

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) Mumbai, for the A.Y 2014-15. 2. The issues involved in these two appeals pertains to one assessee, hence they are clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is passed. First we shall take assessee appeal. 4507/Mum/2024

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) Mumbai, for the A.Y 2014-15. 2. The issues involved in these two appeals pertains to one assessee, hence they are clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is passed. First we shall take assessee appeal. 4507/Mum/2024