THE ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

68 of Income-tax Act, should be read along with section 106 of Evidence Act. The relevant observations at pages 260

ITO 28 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAHLOT CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

68 of Income-tax Act, should be read along with section 106 of Evidence Act. The relevant observations at page 260

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S LUXORA REALTORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

68 and held the same as unexplained income. The Appellant preferred appeal against said addition with Hon'ble CIT (A)-24, which is pending. 14. In the meantime, a search action u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of other associate persons and grow) companies of the Appellant company on 15/03/2015. Hence provisions

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 because the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of credit entries, and so addition was warranted. And the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting it. The Ld. DR also referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi

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 because the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of credit entries, and so addition was warranted. And the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting it. The Ld. DR also referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 68. The Tribunal while dismissing the 24 Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai. appeals filed by the revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. K K VENTURA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands\ndismissed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nComments: The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the said addition\nstating that the assessee had proved the identity and\ncreditworthiness of the lender therefore the loan cannot be\ntermed as bogus. However, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate\nthe fact that the lender had received the said amount\nimmediately

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BUSINESSMATCH SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ITA number 2455/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 – 18 filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

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

68 of the Act of ₹9 crores contended that all the 9 parties from whom the assessee has taken a loan which operated by the accommodation entry provider which is confirmed in their statements that these loans are operated by them for providing accommodation entries. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is correct

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BUSINESSMATCH SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, ITA number 2455/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 – 18 filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

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

68 of the Act of ₹9 crores contended that all the 9 parties from whom the assessee has taken a loan which operated by the accommodation entry provider which is confirmed in their statements that these loans are operated by them for providing accommodation entries. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is correct

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal

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

260 Section 10(38), read with section 147, of the Income- (Ahmedabad - Trib.) IN THE tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' transfer of long-term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 shares of Income-tax Officer, Ward- 10 company 'T' through a stock broker - These

MEGHJI MANSUKHLAL DODHIA,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

68 in respect of\nunsecured loan received from M/s Vinam Finance Private\nLimited, holding that the assessee failed to satisfactorily prove\nidentity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender.\n7. Before Assessing Officer, the assessee contended that the\nseized documents were merely promissory notes and did not\nconstitute hundi transactions. It was also contended that the\ndocuments did not bear

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RUBBERWALA REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to\n2021-22 stands allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19\nstands dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on this ...

260\n3.\nIt is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the\nabove additions/disallowances were verbatim same across all AYs.\nHence, for the sake of convenience, and to avoid repetition of facts; we\ndeem it fit to adjudicate each of the common issues across all AYs\nbefore us together.\n4.\nIssue 1: Addition of unsecured loans

M/S.SHIVAN GIRI STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Shivan Giri Steel Limited, The Income Tax Officer, M/S Vss & Associates Chartered Ward-13(2)(3), Accountants, 306, Dalamal Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers, New Marine Lines, Mumbai. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 8440 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Parag Jha & Prateek Jha Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

68 would come into play when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee come into play when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee come into play when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee and the assessee offers no expla and the assessee offers no explanation about

ITO 27(3)(1),MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. TRIVENI LIFESTYLE DEVELOPERS LLP, GHATKOPAR EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

260/- as unexplained and\nadded the same to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the\nAct

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans of Rs.2,35,02,658/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the unsecured loans during the assessment proceedings; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances The said ground of of the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans of Rs.2,35,02,658/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the unsecured loans during the assessment proceedings; 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances The said ground of of the case