CHEMICON ENGINEERING CONSULTANT PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

68 of the Act, which was also furnished by the assessee. Upon perusing the orders impugned before us in light of the documents furnished by the shareholders and assessee, we therefore first deem it fit to look into the facts of each investors which invested money in the assessee company in the form of share capital along with share premium

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMAZON METALS 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

68 of the Act, the assessee had filed elaborate written submission which has been reproduced at para 11 on pages 16 to 35 of the ld. CIT(A) order. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are that transaction between the assessee and share holders in respect of allotment of equity shares

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

68 of the Act, the assessee had filed elaborate written submission which has been reproduced at para 11 on pages 16 to 35 of the ld. CIT(A) order. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are that transaction between the assessee and share holders in respect of allotment of equity shares

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)

68 of the Act, the assessee had filed elaborate written submission which has been reproduced at para 7 on pages 4 to 35 of the ld. CIT(A) order. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are that transaction between the assessee and share holders in respect of allotment of equity shares

SAPTARSHI REALTORS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 8 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Aaykar Bhavan, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Paral Village, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6828M Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Paral Village, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Advocate Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024

section 68 of ₹ 19,762,025/– he found ITA No. 3291 & 3293/Mum/2022 M/s Saptarshi Relators Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 13-14 that the addition of the above amount is incorrect the total unsecured loan is only ₹ 9,286,843/–. On further examination of the account of nine persons he reaches at the conclusion that unsecured loan taken during the year

MATHURA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

section 68 of the Act is bad in law as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 96 DTR (Del) 299 in which it has been held that in case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO where assessee has furnished

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

482 10 3,14,820 10 3,14,820 6,29,640 Finproject Asia Ltd., Hongkong Total 41,86,583 4,18,65,830 4,18,65,830 8,37,31,660 The Revenue had invoked provisions of Section 56(1) wherein additions were made in the hands of the assessee by the AO towards share premium charged

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

482. 39 crores against Income from House Property - Rs.4.83 crores, Capital Gains - Ks.43.92 crores and Income from Other Sources Rs.1,494.21 15 I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 Tata Motors Ltd crores, thereby resulting in Total Loss of Rs.3,939.43 crores which comprises of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Rs.1,424.18 crores and Unabsorbed Business Loss -Rs. 2,215. 26 crores; which is carried forward

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GRACE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 68, the assessee must satisfy three important conditions, namely, (i) the identity of the creditor; (ii) the genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) the financial capacity of the person giving the cash credit to the assessee, i.e. the credit worthiness of the creditor. M/s Grace Development Associates. Mumbai. However, the onus of the assessee is limited

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

482 sq.ft. - - 2 BHK 132 593 sq.ft. 28 593 sq.ft. 2.5 BHK 2 685 sq.ft. 14 652 sq.ft. Total 136 42 The built-up are of all the residential units in the said buildings are less than 1000 sq. feet as per the Certificate from Architect M/s. Vinay Patil & Associates dated 31.03.2011 certifying are of residential units. The approved housing

DCIT 42 1 1 , MUMBAI vs. PRATAP UTTAM PUROHIT, MUMBAI

68 of 1.T. Act\nwithout appreciating that the Assessing Officer has proved this alleged\ntransaction and LTCG in the penny stock of M/s Moryo Industries Ltd. and\nM/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd, as nothing but an accommodation entry\n8.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is\nerred in deleting the addition

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

68 would be called for. [Para 15] The contention that the Assessing Officer had merely and mechanically acted on the report of the investigation wing also cannot be accepted. One has reproduced the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and noted the gist of his reasons for resorting to reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer had perused the materials

ITO -8(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. SYMMETREE REALTY VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act made by the AO in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 by the Ld. CIT(A) simply on the ground that the tax was less than Rs.4,00,000/- whereas circular No.21/2015 of 10.12.2015 amended by F.No.279/MISC/142/2007 dated 14.07.2017 give liberty to the Revenue to challenge such

ITO-8(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. SYMMETREE REALTY VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act made by the AO in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 by the Ld. CIT(A) simply on the ground that the tax was less than Rs.4,00,000/- whereas circular No.21/2015 of 10.12.2015 amended by F.No.279/MISC/142/2007 dated 14.07.2017 give liberty to the Revenue to challenge such

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, holding that On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, holding that On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, holding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and ailed to discharge the onus of proving

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

68 would be called for. [Para 15] The contention that the Assessing Officer had merely and mechanically acted on the report of the investigation wing also cannot be accepted. One has reproduced the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and noted the gist of his reasons for resorting to reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer had perused the materials

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

68 would be called for. [Para 15] The contention that the Assessing Officer had merely and mechanically acted on the report of the investigation wing also cannot be accepted. One has reproduced the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and noted the gist of his reasons for resorting to reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer had perused the materials

JAY MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(5), MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jay Maharashtra Co-Op. Credit Ito 19(1)(5), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Vs. Room No. 1, Ground Floor, Shiv Parel, Bhavan, Bldg. No. 25, 4Th Mumbai-400012. Kamathipura, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008. Pan No. Aafaj 3385 B Appellant Respondent

482/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny an . The said return was selected for scrutiny an . The said return was selected for scrutiny and, accordingly, statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 accordingly, statutory notices under the Income accordingly, statutory notices under the Income (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued and duly complied (hereinafter referred