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

68 of the Act was not justified. He has also submitted that the only basis of coming to conclusion that the impugned unsecured loans were not genuine, was the statement of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. 2.4.1.5 During the course of Assessment Proceedings the learned AO asked the Appellant to produce investors before him for verification. As against M/s Pravir Polymers

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 income tax act as well as the consequent interest expenditure thereon amounting to ₹ 1,350,000/–. 037. Coming to the ground number 4 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer against the deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 3,913,899/– under section 14 A of the act read with rule 8D of the income

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 income tax act as well as the consequent interest expenditure thereon amounting to ₹ 1,350,000/–. 037. Coming to the ground number 4 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer against the deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 3,913,899/– under section 14 A of the act read with rule 8D of the income

K.B. J JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 68 may be invoked. It will at once become obvious that the Court had not reflected upon the question of whether the burden of proof rested entirely on the assessed, and at which point, if any, this burden could justifiably be shifted to the Assessing Officer. The Full Bench in fact clarified that they were not deciding

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

269 and fixed assets of Rs.81,11,492. Thus, we don‟t find any basis on mere reliance upon the salary income earned by the loan lender to make addition under section 68

AADESH COMMODITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 of the Act. As noted elsewhere, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs.54,269

ARVIND HANJARIMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31 (2) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement

ARVIND HANJARIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31 (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement

ARVIND HANJARIMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31 (2) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement

ARVIND HANJARIMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31 (2) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement

M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the loan taken from Shri Ishwar Adwani was not explained satisfactorily, the revenue preferred appeal before the ITAT and by impugned judgment and order, ITAT dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the aforesaid addition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the loan taken from Shri Ishwar Adwani was not explained satisfactorily, the revenue preferred appeal before the ITAT and by impugned judgment and order, ITAT dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the aforesaid addition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

JIGNA KUNDAN BHATT,VIRAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Cen. Cir. 1(1), Jigna Kundan Bhatt R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Plot No. 277, Kundan Pratistha Bhavan, M. Mansion, Agashi Road, Vs. K. Road, Mumbai- Virar (W), Dist-Thane, 400 020 Thane, Maharashtra- 401303 Pan/Gir No. Afdpb3867Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

68 of the Act is deleted. 32. In case of addition of Rs. 57,83,972/- under section 69A of the Act on account of jewellery, the facts relating to this issue are largely undisputed. During the course of search under section 132 conducted on 19.02.2020, jewellery weighing 1699.446 grams valued at Rs. 57,83,972/- was found

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

section 68 with respect to the same company Surabhi chemicals and investments Ltd for same assessment year has been deleted: - a. Chirag Tej Prakash Dangi V ITO ITA number 3 to 56/M/2022 dated 20/2/2024. b. Anu smriti sarkar versus ITO ITA number 390/M/2020 dated 7/6/2021. c. Usha Devi Modi versus ITO ITA number 874/KOL/2017 dated 26/12/2018. d. Sashi Bala

ITO 9 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs. ASHIANA HOMES MARTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 68 has held that where the revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue to add the same

DCIT CC 7(4), MUMBAI vs. PODDAR RENAISSANCE REALITY PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS IMPERIAL RENAISSAICE RENIASANCE REALITY PVT. LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Cc-7(4), Mumbai V/S. Poddar Renaissance Reality Room No. 659, Aaykar बनाम Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Bhavan, M.K. Road, Imperial Renaissance Mumbai-400020 Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 501/601, Aqua Marine, Carter Road, Mumbai-400050030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcp2657R Appellant/अपीलाथ" .. Respondent/"ितवादी

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act law, this Court in an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act law, this Court in an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. appreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. appreciate

UDAYRAJ N. PAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Udayraj N. Pal Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 25B, New Kant Wadi 304, Piramal Chambers Vs. Perry Cross Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan - Alqpp2215D Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained cash credits/deposits in the assessee’s bank account during the relevant period. It is contended by the assessee that in the impugned order the learned CIT(A) was not justified in considering the re-deposit of withdrawals from the bank account amounting to `7,55,269

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