ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

68,674/- - 50 percent of professional fees at Rs. 2,07,865/- - The amount of Rs.2,00,25,538/- on account of rent receipt as per ITS without considering any expenditure & corroborative evidence. Therefore, order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is suffering from inherent mistake in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,10,02,077/- hence the order of CIT (Appeal

DR KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4659/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three separate appellate orders all dated 4th April, 2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 1, Thane, (Hereinafter called “the CIT (A)”) pertaining to the assessment year’s 2009-10 to 2011-12. Since identical ITA No. 4659/Mum/2016 to 2

DR KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4659/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three separate appellate orders all dated 4th April, 2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 1, Thane, (Hereinafter called “the CIT (A)”) pertaining to the assessment year’s 2009-10 to 2011-12. Since identical ITA No. 4659/Mum/2016 to 2

DR KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4659/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three separate appellate orders all dated 4th April, 2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 1, Thane, (Hereinafter called “the CIT (A)”) pertaining to the assessment year’s 2009-10 to 2011-12. Since identical ITA No. 4659/Mum/2016 to 2

BAO VALUE FUND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the final order of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International), Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai [for short 'the AO] dated 03.01.2024 for the AY 2018-19. The assessee raised the following concise grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances

EDELWEISS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: ITA Nos. 92, 93 & 15/Mum/2022 Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & 17–18 01. These are three appeals filed by the assesses for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18 involving common issue and therefore, same are taken together and disposed of by this common order. Edelweiss Financial Services

EDELWEISS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIR-1(2), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: ITA Nos. 92, 93 & 15/Mum/2022 Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & 17–18 01. These are three appeals filed by the assesses for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18 involving common issue and therefore, same are taken together and disposed of by this common order. Edelweiss Financial Services

ELDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(1) (1) , MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: ITA Nos. 92, 93 & 15/Mum/2022 Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & 17–18 01. These are three appeals filed by the assesses for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18 involving common issue and therefore, same are taken together and disposed of by this common order. Edelweiss Financial Services

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

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

E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

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

E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

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

E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

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

E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

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

E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these

ACIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CITYGOLD FARMING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 9(2)(2) Citygold Farming P. Ltd., बनाम/ Room No. 665A, 6Th Floor 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Centre, Road No. 7, Marol, Mumbai. Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca8865R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

e. Bank statement of the shareholders showing payment made to appellant company. f. Bank statement and bank book of appellant company. g. Valuation report of Charter Accountant justifying issue of shares at premium, the rate of Rs. 1,255/- per share. 2.04 Summons u/s. 131 and requisition u/s. 133(6) were issued on 28.01.2013 to above preference shareholders. Copy

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed