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 68 merely relying on the statement of an alleged entry operator where identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of transaction was proved. 8. It is a settled law that it is mandatory for the Ld. AO to confront the assessee with any material collected by the Assessing Officer at the back of the assessee, and in case

NISA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

section 68. (8) CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/115 Taxman 99 (SC) where the Supreme Court held that even if it was argued that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 68 of the Act was deleted. ii. With respect to the addition of ₹13,30,79,647/-, being surplus arising and credited to the profit and loss account of the assessee in view of demerger, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition. The reason for confirmation of addition was that the gain or profits were arising

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 68 of the Act was deleted. ii. With respect to the addition of ₹13,30,79,647/-, being surplus arising and credited to the profit and loss account of the assessee in view of demerger, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition. The reason for confirmation of addition was that the gain or profits were arising

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 68 of the Act was deleted. ii. With respect to the addition of ₹13,30,79,647/-, being surplus arising and credited to the profit and loss account of the assessee in view of demerger, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition. The reason for confirmation of addition was that the gain or profits were arising

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 68 of the Act was deleted. ii. With respect to the addition of ₹13,30,79,647/-, being surplus arising and credited to the profit and loss account of the assessee in view of demerger, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition. The reason for confirmation of addition was that the gain or profits were arising

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 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

68 of the I.T.Act. Under the facts and\ncircumstances of the matter, he ought not to have\nconfirmed the said addition of Rs.59,24,273/-.\"\n\nAdditional ground\n\"1.\nThe notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law as the\nreopening is pursuant to the search of third party, and\ntherefore the provisions of section

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

section 68 of IT. Act 1961 is bad in law. Reliance on: i) ITAT order Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the case of Jagdish construction Ltd. Vide order dated 25/10/2018. II. No incriminating material. O) In the case of assessee regular assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of IT. Act 1961 on 26/03/2014 accepting loss at Rs.54

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

273,617,764 has not yet crystallized and\ntherefore the addition is required to be made in the hands of\nthe assessee and therefore he considered it to be the income of\nthe assessee under section 68

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act e Tax Act,1961 is intended to serve the objective o intended to serve the objective of checking tax evasion f checking tax evasion.” 8. Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act e Tax Act,1961 is intended to serve the objective o intended to serve the objective of checking tax evasion f checking tax evasion.” 8. Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus, the ld AO has not only held the purchases Thus

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

68 of the I.T.Act. Under the facts and\ncircumstances of the matter, he ought not to have\nconfirmed the said addition of Rs.59,24,273/-.\"\nAdditional ground\n"1.\nThe notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law as the\nreopening is pursuant to the search of third party, and\ntherefore the provisions of section

ITO 7(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. PRABHADEVI PROPERTIES & TRADING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 7(3)(4) V. M/S. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, Room No. 805 “The Peregrine” 400 Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacp4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Atul Suraiya Department By : Shri Jagdish Jangid

section 68 is also not applicable as the Assessee has clearly offered explanation about the nature and the source of the credit and the said explanation cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. The Assessee submits that when THDC was the shareholder of the Assessee, THDC contributed the said sum over the period of time to the Assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

273,617,764 has not yet crystallized and\ntherefore the addition is required to be made in the hands of\nthe assessee and therefore he considered it to be the income of\nthe assessee under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

273,617,764 has not yet crystallized and therefore the addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee and therefore he considered it to be the income of the assessee under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRNAY COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

273,617,764 has not yet crystallized and therefore the addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee and therefore he considered it to be the income of the assessee under section 68

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN STAR DIAMONDS ITERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

68-690. Under income from house property, there is concept of deemed to be let out u/s 23(1 )(a) of the Act. Similarly section 41 deals with remission of liabilities as deemed income. Section 44AD to 44BBB deal with presumptive income as does section 50C and 50D in the Act. No doubt the decision