DCIT CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ACRO EXPORTS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer should prove that the credit is, in fact, the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In this case, nothing has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR further referring to various 23 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mum/2018 C.O.No. 74 & 76/Mum/2019 M/s. Acro Exports Trade Pvt.Ltd. & M/s. Amazon Metals

DCIE CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer should prove that the credit is, in fact, the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In this case, nothing has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR further referring to various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Section 68 of the Act.\nThe assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the\nassessing officer [CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd., 1993 SCC\nOnLine Cal 384: (1994) 208 ITR 465]:\n• Proof of identity of the creditors;\n•\nCapacity of creditors to advance money; and\n• Genuineness of transaction\nThis Court in the landmark case

RAMESH AMRATLAL BRAHMBHATT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the reassessment order dated 20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Amratlal Ito Ward 34(3)(2), Brahmbhatt Kautilya Bhavan, 43 Rajnigandha, Vs. Bandra Kurla Gulmohar Cross Road No. Complex, Mumbai – 11, J V P D Scheme, 400 051 Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan/Gir No. Aabpb7235R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

68 of the Act is not justified – Rs.3,80,79,292/- 6. The NFAC is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.3,80,79,292/- made by the Ld. A.O. under section

PRATIK SYNTEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Pratik Syntex Private Ito 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar V. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaecp3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 68 of the 1961 Act to bring to tax share capital including share premium which otherwise were capital receipt to fasten tax liability on the assessee. The learned CIT(A) confirmed additions to the income in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- which was received by the assessee from these three companies namely

TARUNA KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mrs. Taruna Kataria, The Ito-19(2)(2), 404, Bule Heaven, Nehru Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Acgpk 7391 G Appellant Respondent

68 of the I.T. Act and added the same to the total income of the appellant. The A.O. same to the total income of the appellant. The A.O. same to the total income of the appellant. The A.O. also mentioned in the as also mentioned in the assessment order that the sessment order that the provisions of Section 292

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act as the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, wherein the same script i.e M/s Tilak Venture Ltd was in question and after evaluating the entire factual and financial statements of M/s. Tilak Venture Ltd, additions were deleted. In this regard the Ld.AR also relied upon the decision

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,40,27,967) TML Holdings Pte Lid - Equity 5,00,00,00 4 shares 0 1,99,81,75,000 785/582 2,69,51,32,947 5,43,95,00,000 2,74,43,67,053 7 M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., TML Holdings Pte Ltd - Equity 4,16,66,70 5 shares 0 1,77,75,59,755 785/582

AEON COMMERCIAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMABI

292/-\n4. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and called for\nexplanation from the assessee. The assessee furnished ledger\naccounts, bank statements and other details and contended that\nno fresh credit had been received from the above parties during\nthe relevant previous year and that the entries represented either\nrepayment of earlier loans or credit of interest.\n5. The Assessing

KALSHA BUILDERS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 45. CIT(A) has also relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801. The facts of which was as under:- [a) The appellant's knowledge of racing is very meagre; b) A jackpot is a stake of five events

KALSHA BUILDERS P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 45. CIT(A) has also relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801. The facts of which was as under:- [a) The appellant's knowledge of racing is very meagre; b) A jackpot is a stake of five events

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KDM IMPEX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our\naforesaid observations

292 CTR (Gut)\n354, Dated. 16.01.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held\nthat once a findings of Act has been given that entire\npurchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices and\ndebited in the P & L account are established as bogus, then\nrestricting the addition to a curtained percentage goes against\nthe principles of section 68

ASST CIT CEN CIR 3, THANE vs. CREDENTIAL EQUITIES P. LTD, BHAYANDER

In the result, the appeal of Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

Section 68 without any additional material to support such a move." It was held likewise in Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 329 ITR 110/195 Taxman 262 (Delhi). 33. In CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 407/214 Taxman 429/30 taxmann.com 292

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, the Income Tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under Section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68,640 07 2007- 4,63,02,636 17,26,319 3.73% 25,07,535 0 25,07,535 42,33,854 9.14% 27,20,029 08 2008- 10,48,76,738 39,58,773 3.77% 42,47,059 53,67,292

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68,640 07 2007- 4,63,02,636 17,26,319 3.73% 25,07,535 0 25,07,535 42,33,854 9.14% 27,20,029 08 2008- 10,48,76,738 39,58,773 3.77% 42,47,059 53,67,292

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68,640 07 2007- 4,63,02,636 17,26,319 3.73% 25,07,535 0 25,07,535 42,33,854 9.14% 27,20,029 08 2008- 10,48,76,738 39,58,773 3.77% 42,47,059 53,67,292

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68,640 07 2007- 4,63,02,636 17,26,319 3.73% 25,07,535 0 25,07,535 42,33,854 9.14% 27,20,029 08 2008- 10,48,76,738 39,58,773 3.77% 42,47,059 53,67,292