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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai The learned Add. CIT thereafter, as per the mandate of section 144C(13)/(5) of the Act, completed the assessment, wherein a demand of Rs 297,26,54,239 was raised, however, no adverse observations/ additions was made with respect to the rights issue. 2.3 Subsequent to the above

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

section 68 of the Act when the assessee has during the assessment as well as remand proceedings failed to furnish complete A.Y. 2018-19 details in support of claim of renewal of FD and thus rendering the claim of renewal of FD as unexplained loan transaction. 6

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

section 68 of the Act when the assessee has during the assessment as well as remand proceedings failed to furnish complete A.Y. 2018-19 details in support of claim of renewal of FD and thus rendering the claim of renewal of FD as unexplained loan transaction. 6

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

section 68 would itself to be misconceived and redundant inasmuch as it is only based on the misconceived and redundant inasmuch as it is only based on the misconceived and redundant inasmuch as it is only based on the credit appearing in the books of account. As clarified earlier, it is a credit appearing in the books of account

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 68. Therefore, the AO\nis directed to delete the addition. The\nassessee succeeds in this appeal. 11.\nResultantly, this appeal is allowed.\n4.\nIncome\nTax Officer-\n22(3)(6

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) ..

Section 68 cannot be applied. 6. [2008) 21 SOT 22 (DELHIUURO) SURAJ BHAN BAJAJ vs. ITO Section 68

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

6. And thereafter, the Assessing Officer was pleased to make an addition of Rs.9,97,50,100/- under section 68

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 68 of ITA has allowed relief by relying on certain documents, which are only superfluous in nature. The judgement of CIT(A) has done gross injustice to the revenue. 6

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 68 of ITA has allowed relief by relying on certain documents, which are only superfluous in nature. The judgement of CIT(A) has done gross injustice to the revenue. 6

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 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

ITO 12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEXT AVENUE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED(EARLIER KNOWN AS KBJ VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

6) of the Act but same was not replied and therefore, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition under section 115BE by invoking provisions of section 68

M/S. LIFELINE MEDICARE HOSPITALS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

6) of the Act but same was not replied and therefore, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition under section 115BE by invoking provisions of section 68

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUCHIR CHEMICALS PVT LTD, MUMBAI.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

6 to 7 years of the transactions. 7.8 One cannot lost sight of the fact that the impugned AY is 2010- 11 and pre-amended section 68

M/S.FROHAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 does not apply. " 6. ITO vs. Vishwadham Traders P. Ltd. (supra) "Section 68 of the Act is not applicable

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 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. Now, in order to Now, in order to appreciate the submission it would be appreciate the submission it would be necessary to consider the Judgment of the Delhi High

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 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. Now, in order to Now, in order to appreciate the submission it would be appreciate the submission it would be necessary to consider the Judgment of the Delhi High

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

6 ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of Section 68

DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

6 ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of Section 68