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

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

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 2(24)('xvi) of the Ac!. However, what is bought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed is capital not received from a non-resident i.e. premium allegedly not received an application

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

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 not suffice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI YOGENDRA KANODIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-Cc-5(4), Vs. Mrs.Rashmiyogendra Room No.1924,19Th Kanodia(Legal Heir Of Floor, Air Late Shri Yogendra Indiabuilding, Surajmal Kanodia) Nariman Point, 1 St Floor,Samudra Mumbai-400021. Tarang, Keluskarroad, Northshivajipark,Dadar, Mumbai-400028. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpk4863A Appellant .. Respondent

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69BSection 69C or Section 69D are is pre-requisite before Section 115BBE can be invoked It is submitted that the assessee is not satisfying the conditions of Section 115BBE(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act1961 and therefore Section 115BBE are not applicable to the assessee during

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 68 of the Act to tax the full amount recd. On sale of shares as alleged unexplained cash credit as alleged income earned from undisclosed sources where AO has concluded the same in his order, if views of AO is summarized then crux of the same is astronomical long term capital gains earned by assessee defies common sense

INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. CYMBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-12(1)(4) M/S Cymbal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145A, B-204, Kesar Baug, L.T. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Borivali (East), Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400092. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaecc7675C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

section 253 of Income-tax Act (‘Act’) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 20, Mumbai [hereinafter referred as ld. CIT(A)] dated 01.05.2015 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

NILESH JANARDAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

253(5), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication, on merits. ITA 3738/Mum/2013 10. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013 are reproduced below:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT4(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is not admitted

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”); (ii) addition of ₹15,54,465/- relating to alleged penny stock Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd transactions; (iii) addition of transactions; (iii) addition of ₹11,08,57,180/- under section 69C for under section 69C for unexplained expenditure; (iv) addition of lained expenditure

CLESTRA LIFE SCIENCES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Clestra Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle- 40, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Brahma Drugs Pvt. Ltd.) ‘A’ Wing, 604, Delphi Vs. M.K. Road, Orchid Avenue, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaacb5795L Appellant Respondent

253 of Income-tax Act is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 27.08.2014 for Assessment Year 2004-05. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38, Mumbai [CIT(A)] erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment u/s.147 and thereby holding that the order

ITO 7(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. HOMESHINE PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2231/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

253 )(Mumbai ITAT) wherein facts are distinguishable from the cases of the assessee" 6. "On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that proviso to section 68

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act as the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, wherein the same script i.e M/s Tilak Venture Ltd was in question and after evaluating the entire factual and financial statements of M/s. Tilak Venture Ltd, additions were deleted. In this regard the Ld.AR also relied upon the decision

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

CLEMENTINE FERNANDES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. 1.2 That under section 253(4) of the Income

BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito-Mum-W(443)(1), 411, Kewal Indl. Estate, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Karve, Road, New Marine Mumbai-400013. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaapz 0864 D Appellant Respondent

253(5) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. The may condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. The may condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. The expression “sufficient cause

M/S MONK AKARSHALA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Monk Akarshala Private Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 2(2)(1) 4116 Oberoi Garden Estate Room No. 545 Chandivli Vlg Farm Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Near Chandivli Studio, Saki Naka Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai City - 400072 Pan: Aagcm4703K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa & Ms. Manasi Vyas Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

253 (Delhi), the assessee was in the business of setting up of satellite communication systems. It was held that the first step required was the purchase of VSAT equipment. The said purchase order was placed on 28th July, 1994, and thereafter the assessee had obtained license from the Department of Telecommunications, and, started receiving satellite signals. It was held that

LALIT R JAGAWAT HUF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 23(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 634/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Lalit R Jagawat Huf V/S. Dcit, 23(2), 80B Patwa Chawl, Room बिाम Mantru Mandir, Room No. No. 41, 3Rd Floor, Sheikh 114, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Momon Street, Zaveri Mumbai-400007 Bazar, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aachj7165D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya Rai

section 68 of the Act to the income already offered for tax by the Assessee (as cash sales) at a higher rate of tax of 77.25% (i.e. flat rate of 60% plus surcharge @ 25% on such tax and cess as applicable) on gross basis (without any deduction/allowance). In fact the treatment of the cash deposits as unexplained cash credits

ASST CIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANKALP CORPORATE P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1) M/S. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

section 68 is not retrospective. For this he referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this regard, the ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to a catena of case laws as under: Sr. No. PARTICULARS 1. CIT vs. Orchid Industries

ZAKIR ABDULKARIM NAIK,MUMBAI vs. AO, INCOME TAX

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 and unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. It was submitted that similar fact exists for other assessment years wherein the notices u/s 148 were served on the assessee through affixture, there was no return filed in response to the notices/no compliance on part of the assessee and assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 144 r.w.s