DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 68. The abundance of these tends to convey the impression that the AO has been vested with vast discretionary powers and the application of a provision depends mainly upon how he utilises his discretion. The question could be asked whether, he, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is unfettered by any rule of law or procedure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 68. The abundance of these tends to convey the impression that the AO has been vested with vast discretionary powers and the application of a provision depends mainly upon how he utilises his discretion. The question could be asked whether, he, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is unfettered by any rule of law or procedure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which\nassessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus\ncast u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the\nassessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In\nview of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly\nrequested that the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which\nassessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus\ncast u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the\nassessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In\nview of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly\nrequested that the order

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

68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

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

DCIT - CC -3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALKALASH TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

sections 68 and 69C had been made\nand confirmed. The CIT(A) held that since the investments were\nrecorded in the books of account of the assessee, and corresponding\nMangalkalash Trading P. Ltd. 4\nITA No. 576/MUM/2019\nsubstantive additions had already been confirmed in the hands of\nthe beneficiary entities, the protective additions in the hands of the\nassessee

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 68 of the Act. 7. In response, assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 15.12.2017, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below (As reproduced by Assessing Officer in assessment order): - “The reply of the assessee is received in this office on 15.12.2017. The submissions made by the assessee and the judicial pronouncements cited therein have been

DCIT- 10 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. OPERA INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 then the revenue is free to examine the lender company rather than making addition in the recipient company. Thus, I am constrained to follow the principles laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports (Supra) and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Bombay High Court in case referred in earlier para. Thus

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68\niii) Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011]12 taxmann.com 276 (P&H)\nSection 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Unexplained\ninvestments- Assessment year 1998-99-During assessment\nproceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had\npurchased certain shares of a company at rate between 2.50\nand 3.40 per share in month of April, 1997 and part of those\nshares

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

68 and treated the entire transaction as penny stock transaction. Further, an amount of Rs.7,50,772/- was added back with the total income U/s 69C as an alleged commission paid to entry and exit providers. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. SURESH GURUBUXSING WADHWA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 of the Act. 3 Appeals DCIT, CC8(1) VS. Shri Suresh Gurbuxsing Wadhwa 5 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has passed combined order for A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2014-15 vide order dated 23.10.2019. The ld. CIT(A) stated that A.O had heavily relied

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), MUMBAI vs. SURINDER ANANTRAM SABHLOK, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has passed combined order for A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15 vide order dated 04.10.2019. The ld. CIT(A) stated that on the similar facts and identical issues he had passed order in the case

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

276/-, Rs.96,35,640/- & Rs.81,42,250/- for A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively under section 68

NAVIN SHANTILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 32(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

276/-, Rs.96,35,640/- & Rs.81,42,250/- for A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively under section 68

NAVIN SHANTILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 32(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

276/-, Rs.96,35,640/- & Rs.81,42,250/- for A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively under section 68

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

68 of the Act by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A vide order dated 27.12.2016. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.22,32,00,000/- by holding that the addition can not be made de hors

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.OPEL PAPER MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the income tax act. He submitted that the learned CIT – A did not consider that addition of the credit during the year is required to be made at least. He submitted that in both these cases, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is not proved. It was also stated that assessee has not submitted anything