SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

45,10,385 is bad in law and ought to be\ndeleted.\n7. Enhancement of income by the CIT(A) of Rs 7.22.961\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment by making disallowance of\nRs 7,22.961. being miscellaneous expenses debited to profit and loss account\nfor contravention of provisions of section 40A(3).\n7.2

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

45,10,385 is bad in law and ought to be\ndeleted.\n7. Enhancement of income by the CIT(A) of Rs 7.22.961\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment by making disallowance of\nRs 7,22.961. being miscellaneous expenses debited to profit and loss account\nfor contravention of provisions of section 40A(3).\n7.2

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45,000 shares. Thus\nassessee was able to discharge the burden of proving the credibility of\nfour share subscribers; share capital and premium has been passed on\nassessee through banking channel which fact is discernable from bank\nstatement file with the paper book and the other three (3) share-\nsubscribers identity are proved by their respective PAN details, ITR,\nConfirmation

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

3. Devasenapati Sales Agency Private Limited Devasenapati Sales Agency Private Limited 108 - 109 4. Flutron Marketing & Advertising Private Limited Flutron Marketing & Advertising Private Limited 131 - 142 5. Onspec Infotech Limited Onspec Infotech Limited 175 - 186 6. Ronit Capital Management Limited Ronit Capital Management Limited 195 - 207 7. Ronit Textiles Private Limited Ronit 217 - 233 8. Shandhiya Marketing & Advertising Private

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of the Act by providing all explanations regarding the receipt of funds on account of issue of rights shares to its existing shareholders. 44 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2.42 In the instant case, from the documents furnished before lower authorities it is abundantly clear that the assessee has not only furnished irrefutable

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

45(4) of the Act profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of person or body of individuals(not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise , shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

45(4) of the Act profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of person or body of individuals(not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise , shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by learned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to disallowance of provision for standard

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by learned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to disallowance of provision for standard

ITO 16(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. PREM RAMANAND SAGAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 45(3) which does not permit him to substitute the full value of consideration other than the amount recorded in the books of account of the joint venture. As the Assessing Officer's action is not according to the provisions of Sec 45(3), there is no justification for upholding the contentions of Revenue. We uphold the order

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATNT 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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied