RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

54,346 which has been made under Section 68 representing unexplained unsecured loans taken by the appellant. 6.3 The appellant

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

54,346 which has been made under Section 68 representing unexplained unsecured loans taken by the appellant. 6.3 The appellant

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54,239 was raised, however, no adverse observations/ additions was made with respect to the rights issue. 2.3 Subsequent to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh („learned CIT‟) passed an order under Section 263 of the Act, directing the learned AO to examine the „identity, creditworthiness and genuineness‟ of the transaction in respect of rights

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 115 BBE rws 68 and therefore the addition\nmade is required to be deleted\n6. The Ld AO has erred in making the addition of Rs 34900000 since\nthis figure of sales is already included in the amount of Rs\n141,60,54

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 and assessee has to establish identity and creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the transaction, it/s also true that money received through foreign remittance with RBI approval is a strong indicator of bona fide of the cash credit that has to be disapproved only with positive evidence. (vi) In matters regarding cash credit, the onus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

section. Therefore, the contention of the assessee is not acceptable on this count as well. 10.1 From the above, it is amply clear that the assessee is unable to prove & establish the genuineness of any services rendered and also about consultancy income. It is pertinent to mention here that, already during the course of Survey u/s 133A, Mr. Vincent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

section. Therefore, the contention of the assessee is not acceptable on this count as well. 10.1 From the above, it is amply clear that the assessee is unable to prove & establish the genuineness of any services rendered and also about consultancy income. It is pertinent to mention here that, already during the course of Survey u/s 133A, Mr. Vincent

SYNTENSIA NETWORK SECURITY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

54,634/-) was transferred through a journal entry of Rs.2,02,79,380/- to share capital account and share premium account respectively. Thus, the assessee has not received any single amount in A.Y.2012-13 for the allotment of shares. Under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bombay) held as under. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share dealings

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bombay) held as under. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share dealings

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

68,25,750/- in the following manner :- "Income from Capital Gain Long Term A 22 WESTEND COLONY Consideration as per Collaboration Agreement 40,000,000.00 Less Index cost for pur. of Rs. 1575000 (Fair Value as on 1-04-81) 8,174,250.00 31,825,750.00 Less : Exemption under section 54EC (REC Bonds

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 68 of the Act - a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100 a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100 a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100 was alleged to have been paid by various companies

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 68 of the Act - a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100 a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100 a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100 was alleged to have been paid by various companies

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

section 68 of the IT Act. Further, these share IT Act. Further, these share-applicants have been accepted as genuine applicants have been accepted as genuine during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act in the AY during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act in the AY during assessment proceedings

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68 of the IT Act read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO just made two observation while passing the order: 1. Assessee has neither furnished the details of the parties, name and address 2. Assessee has not carried out any cash sales and the assessee was in possession of unexplained cash credits and since

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

68,25,750/- in the following manner :- "Income from Capital Gain Long Term A 22 WESTEND COLONY Consideration as per Collaboration Agreement 40,000,000.00 Less Index cost for pur. of Rs. 1575000 (Fair Value as on 1-04-81) 8,174,250.00 31,825,750.00 Less : Exemption under section 54EC (REC Bonds

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

68,25,750/- in the following manner :- "Income from Capital Gain Long Term A 22 WESTEND COLONY Consideration as per Collaboration Agreement 40,000,000.00 Less Index cost for pur. of Rs. 1575000 (Fair Value as on 1-04-81) 8,174,250.00 31,825,750.00 Less : Exemption under section 54EC (REC Bonds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which\nassessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus\ncast u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the\nassessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In\nview of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly\nrequested that the order