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

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAY BHARAT MEHTA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act regarding the genuineness of the transaction by placing before the Assessing Officer the Letter of Offer and the approval given by CCI. 17 Assessment Year 2021-2022 25. As regards the doubts harbored by the Assessing Officer regarding the source of funds are concerned, we find that the same are allayed by the Confirmation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

section 68 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after\nconsidering the submission and analysing facts and evidences,\ndeleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the\nRevenue is on appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (in\nshort the 'Tribunal') by way of raising grounds as reproduced above.\n5. The learned counsel

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

section 68 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after\nconsidering the submission and analysing facts and evidences,\ndeleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the\nRevenue is on appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (in\nshort the 'Tribunal') by way of raising grounds as reproduced above.\n5. The learned counsel

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAKAR BHAVAN vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

section 68 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after\nconsidering the submission and analysing facts and evidences,\ndeleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the\nRevenue is on appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (in\nshort the 'Tribunal') by way of raising grounds as reproduced above.\n5. The learned counsel

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

section 68 of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 7. The NFAC is not justified in confirming the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,80,79,292/- being Long Term Capital gains on sale of listed equity shares claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act without considering the fact

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

364,070/– as total income of the\nassessee under section 69C of the act. Accordingly, the assessment\norder under section 144 read with section 153A of The Income Tax\nAct was passed on 26/2/2021 determining total income of the\nassessee at 790,768,059/– against the return of income filed by the\nassessee on 17/10/2016

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

DCIT - 14(2)(2), vs. M/S MISHAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI vs. INX MEDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Circle 6(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Mumbai – 20. Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 6(1), 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, Vs. Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road Mumbai – 20. (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

68 amounting to Rs. 398.29 crore ( both domestic as well as from non-residents). Before we deal with these issues, we shall take up the relevant facts of the assessee and the issues. 3. Background Facts: General facts include that the assessee is engaged in the „telecasting of TV channel and providing broad casting services‟. Assessee filed the loss return

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

364,070/– as total income of the\nassessee under section 69C of the act. Accordingly, the assessment\norder under section 144 read with section 153A of The Income Tax\nAct was passed on 26/2/2021 determining total income of the\nassessee at ₹ 790,768,059/– against the return of income filed by the\nassessee on 17/10/2016

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

ASST CIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B & M BUILDCON , MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

section 153A is limited to assessing only search related income, thereby denying Revenue, the opportunity of taxing other escaped income that comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was correct in holding that information available with the Revenue department as well the information

B & M BUILDCON ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 (1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

section 153A is limited to assessing only search related income, thereby denying Revenue, the opportunity of taxing other escaped income that comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was correct in holding that information available with the Revenue department as well the information

B & M BUILDCON ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 (1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

section 153A is limited to assessing only search related income, thereby denying Revenue, the opportunity of taxing other escaped income that comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was correct in holding that information available with the Revenue department as well the information