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:

274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately. 5.7 As per the provisions of section 115BBE (2) of the I.T.Act no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set off any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provisions of the Act with respect to income determined u/s 68

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, the AO without even pointing out any infirmity in the documents 14 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises filed by the assesse regarding the lenders who were regular income tax assessees, the AO has made high pitched assessment by just giving 24 hours notice to produce all the 127 parties

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, the AO without even pointing out any infirmity in the documents 14 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises filed by the assesse regarding the lenders who were regular income tax assessees, the AO has made high pitched assessment by just giving 24 hours notice to produce all the 127 parties

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

68 of the Act being deemed income which was not recorded in books of accounts. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court "Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT[2001] 247 ITR 290/[2002] 120 Taxman 11 and decision on Hon'ble ITAT Chennai (ITA No 325/Mds./2015 dated 06.04.2016 DCIT Vs M/s Shree Karthik Papers

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

274 read with section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage." 68

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

274 read with section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage." 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the 1961 Act and the appellate order 29 passed by learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained in view of our aforesaid detailed observations. Thus, under these circumstances we hereby confirm additions to the tune of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- as were made by the Assessing Officer and set aside the appellate order passed

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 271(1)(c). Hence, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) rws 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately. (Add: Rs. 4,59,10,500/-) 9. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. Detailed submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced below: - “Applicability of sec. 68

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

68,349/-. The assessee has also submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

68,349/-. The assessee has also submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

68,349/-. The assessee has also submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

68,349/-. The assessee has also submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREEDHAM BUILDERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

section 68 of the Act. The appellant has given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the share applicants. After considering the entire material placed on record, it is fair to conclude that theshare applicants were existing parties and the payments were made through banking channels, It is also observed that the Assessing Officer could

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 as unexplained cash credit and in none of the cases the assessees have admitted the same as income. Therefore, we find that the case laws relied up on by the Ld.DR has no application in the instant case and the same are distinguishable. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 as unexplained cash credit and in none of the cases the assessees have admitted the same as income. Therefore, we find that the case laws relied up on by the Ld.DR has no application in the instant case and the same are distinguishable. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts

JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

68,331/- were in the nature of bad debts written off and therefore, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act, though the same was voluntarily disallowed. According to the Appellant the time for filing revised return of income had expired, and therefore, the Appellant filed revised computation of income

ITO -13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHWA VYAPAR TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

section 68 of the Act. The appellant has given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the share applicants. After considering the entire material placed on record, it is fair to conclude that theshare applicants were existing parties and the payments were made through banking channels, It is also observed that the Assessing Officer could

JAY GANGA EXIM INDIA PVT.LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-13(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Narender Kumar Choudhry\Nita No. 964/Kol/2019\N Assessment Year : 2012-13\Njay Ganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd.,\N(Formerly Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd.)\Npanjapara, Mashila,\Nvs.\Nsankrail,\Nhowrah-711302.\Nwest Bengal\Ndcit-4(3), Mumbai\Nnow Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata\Naayakar Bhawan,\Np-7, Chowringhee Square,\Nkolkata-700069.\Npan : Aaacj8822E\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By : Shri Tejveer Singh,\Nharsh Vijayvargiya\Nrevenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing : 20-03-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 08-04-2025\Norder\Nper B.R. Baskaran, A.M :\Nthe Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated\N20-12-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-5, Kolkata & It Relates To The\N Assessment Year (Ay.) 2012-13. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision\Nof Ld Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.116.50 Crores Relating To\Nshare Capital & Share Premium Made By The Ao As Unexplained Cash\Ncredit U/S 68 Of The Act.\N2. The Facts Relating To The Case Are Stated In Brief. The Assessee Was\Npreviously Known As Jay Jyoti India P Ltd. It Filed Its Return Of Income For\Nthe Year Under Consideration Declaring Loss Of Rs.41.56 Lakhs. During The\Ncourse Of Scrutiny Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Has\Nraised Share Capital Of Rs.6,21,40,500/- Along With Share Premium Of\Nrs.110,28,34,500/- Aggregating To Rs.116,49,75,000/-. The Above Said\Namounts Have Been Received From 35 Subscribers Out Of Which 28\Nsubscribers Were From Kolkatta & The Remaining 7 Subscribers Were From\Nmumbai. All The Share Subscribers Are Private Limited Companies.\N2.

274 | 11.39,47,199 | 47,00,000 | 4.12 |\n| CHAMPION ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED | AAECC6553B | 50,50,050 | 24,98,00,266 | 25,48,50,316 | 2,48,00,000 | 9.73 |\n| CHINAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED | AACCC1226B | 27,14,11,743 | 71,88,05,824 | 98,82,17,567 | 7,67,50,000 | 7.77 |\n| CLAUDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED | AAECC7094H