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

ASST CIT 6 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S CHIRIPAL POLY FILMS LTD., MUMBAI

293/- and offering income of INR 24,79,61,362/- to tax under Section 115JB of the Act. 3.1. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 30/12/2016, after making, inter alia, (a) addition

GAUTAM ASHOK CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

ASHISH SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

VISHWAS SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

GAURAV ABHAY CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal challenge to the addition on the ground that no incriminating challenge to the addition

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68 casts liability on assesse - the assessee has to prove assessee has to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received amounts of cash received during the accounting year and if not, the ITO accounting year and if not, the ITO is entitled to draw the inference

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68 casts liability on assesse - the assessee has to prove assessee has to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received amounts of cash received during the accounting year and if not, the ITO accounting year and if not, the ITO is entitled to draw the inference

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

68 and section 69C of the Act on account of alleged\naccommodation entries of bogus long-term capital gain. From the perusal of\nthe assessment order, it is discernible that the said addition is not based on\nany material or document found during the course of search/survey action\nunder section 132/133A of the Act conducted at the residential

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

68 and section 69C of the Act on account of alleged\naccommodation entries of bogus long-term capital gain. From the perusal of\nthe assessment order, it is discernible that the said addition is not based on\nany material or document found during the course of search/survey action\nunder section 132/133A of the Act conducted at the residential

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A and Rule 8D on earning this income. Q.No.30. Furnish details of Long term capital gains. Q.No.38. Furnish details of loss incurred on redeeming preference shares. 3.2. We find that assessee had duly replied to these questionnaires vide its letter dated 28/10/2015 responding to various queries raised by the assessee more particularly the specific queries

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

293 (Bombay), Arvind Sahdeo Gupta v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 153 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay), tax Officer [2023] 153 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay), tax Officer [2023] 153 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay), Reynolds Shirting Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Reynolds Shirting Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Reynolds Shirting Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2),, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

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

293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section