DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

272 Taxman 36). In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the rigors of Section 68

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

272 Taxman 36). In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the rigors of Section 68

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 68 was to be deleted-Held, yes [Paras 7, 7.2 and 9] [In favour of assessee). Ground of Appeal 2 On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in concluding that cash sales has increased drastically upto 10 times as compared to the previous year without appreciating the facts

DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TULIP HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

68,890/-. The assessee's assessment was completed u/s. 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 15.03.2014, assessing an income of 2 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Rs.61,16,28,856/-. The A.O. while completing the assessment made the following additions:- 1. Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act of Rs. 11,31,075/- 2. Non-acceptance of the assessee

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

272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79(SC). 7.7. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68

KBJ DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and\nthat of Assessee is allowed, subject to verification, as directed\nabove in para no

section 68 of the Act introduced vide Finance Act, 2012 has to\nbe made applicable w.e.f 01/04/2013 and from A.Y. 2013-14\nonwards, as affirmed by us, is fortified with the judgment of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep\nInfrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272

ACIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

272 (Bom.) it observed as under: ..." The proviso to section 68 has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KBJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and\nthat of Assessee is allowed, subject to verification, as directed\nabove in para no

section 68 of the Act introduced vide Finance Act, 2012 has to\nbe made applicable w.e.f 01/04/2013 and from A.Y. 2013-14\nonwards, as affirmed by us, is fortified with the judgment of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep\nInfrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272

POOJA EQUIRESEARCH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5941/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(2), B-101, Hari Darshan Bhogilal Mumbai Phadia Road, Kandivali (West) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacp 6499 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.Dr

Section 68 of the Act to the case of the Assessee, which at all are not applicable to the instant, as made applicable from 1st April 2013 but not retrospectively as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-1 Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (2017) 18 taxmann.com 272

CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE .6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

68 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has failed to furnish the details of source of funds in the hands of EMEL and also of funds in the hands of PPIL. 6. On the facts and of the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DCIT, CIRCLE.6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

68 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has failed to furnish the details of source of funds in the hands of EMEL and also of funds in the hands of PPIL. 6. On the facts and of the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

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

68 of the income tax act of the sales made by the assessee to M/s Sangeeta enterprises. Accordingly, the ground No 1 raised by the learned AO is dismissed. 24. Second ground of appeal of the learned assessing officer is with respect to the deletion of the addition under section 69C of the act of ₹ 288 lakhs. On careful

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

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

68 of the income tax act of the sales made by the assessee to M/s Sangeeta enterprises. Accordingly, the ground No 1 raised by the learned AO is dismissed. 24. Second ground of appeal of the learned assessing officer is with respect to the deletion of the addition under section 69C of the act of ₹ 288 lakhs. On careful

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

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

68 of the income tax act of the sales made by the assessee to M/s Sangeeta enterprises. Accordingly, the ground No 1 raised by the learned AO is dismissed. 24. Second ground of appeal of the learned assessing officer is with respect to the deletion of the addition under section 69C of the act of ₹ 288 lakhs. On careful

BHISHMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

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

68 of the income tax act of the sales made by the assessee to M/s Sangeeta enterprises. Accordingly, the ground No 1 raised by the learned AO is dismissed. 24. Second ground of appeal of the learned assessing officer is with respect to the deletion of the addition under section 69C of the act of ₹ 288 lakhs. On careful

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

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

68 of the income tax act of the sales made by the assessee to M/s Sangeeta enterprises. Accordingly, the ground No 1 raised by the learned AO is dismissed. 24. Second ground of appeal of the learned assessing officer is with respect to the deletion of the addition under section 69C of the act of ₹ 288 lakhs. On careful