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

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

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

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

54,550 is bad in law and ought to be deleted\n6. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,45.10.385\n6.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,45,10,385 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference.\n6.2

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

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

54,550 is bad in law and ought to be deleted\n\n6. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,45.10.385\n\n6.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,45,10,385 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

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

54,550 is bad in law and ought to be deleted\n6. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,45.10.385\n6.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,45,10,385 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference.\n6.2

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

54,550 is bad in law and ought to be deleted\n6. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,45.10.385\n6.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,45,10,385 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference.\n6.2

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

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

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

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