BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

17 results for “section 68”+ Section 88Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai17Kolkata8Ahmedabad7Delhi4

Key Topics

Section 88E30Section 143(3)21Section 15420Section 14A17Disallowance12Addition to Income11Section 115J10Section 13310Section 271(1)(c)8Section 94(7)6Deduction6Survey u/s 133A5

PRAKASH SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2624/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2624/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARs’For Respondent: Shri Somnath M. Wagale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(10)Section 88E

section 88E of ₹ 30,93,497/- as claimed. It is observed from the record that your income during the financial year 2007-08 consisted of following: Income from share treading 93,51,369 Interest income 2,44,256 Interest income 26,68

MADHAV STOCK VISION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 581/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 88ESection 88E(2)

68,713/- which was claimed only to the extent of tax on the income of the assessee other than the short term capital gain. Thus, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee while computing the income for the year suo-moto restricted the rebate under section 88E

ACIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3445/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit – Circle – 2(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd., R.No.552, 5Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan South East Wing 9Th M.K.Road, Floor, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci1195H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 88Section 88E

section 88E was allowable for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, this had resulted into wrong grant of rebate of Rs. 1,99,16,051/- u/s. 88E of the Act. Thereafter, AO passed order u/s.154 so as to disallow the rebate granted u/s.88 E amounting to Rs.1,99,68

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG (1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4248/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10(15)Section 115JSection 234BSection 41(4)Section 88ESection 90

88E 7,08,99,317 8 Short grant of relief under section 90 4,67,30,903 9 Charging of interest under section 234B & 234D 10 (10.1 & 10.2) Provisions of section 115JB not applicable 11 General Revenue Ground No. Item of disallowance / addition Amount – Rs. 1 & 2 Depreciation on leased assets 43,43,25,891 2 Addition

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4158/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10(15)Section 115JSection 234BSection 41(4)Section 88ESection 90

88E 7,08,99,317 8 Short grant of relief under section 90 4,67,30,903 9 Charging of interest under section 234B & 234D 10 (10.1 & 10.2) Provisions of section 115JB not applicable 11 General Revenue Ground No. Item of disallowance / addition Amount – Rs. 1 & 2 Depreciation on leased assets 43,43,25,891 2 Addition

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

88E of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee had received a dividend of Rs.47,16,889/- from Indian Companies and Mutual Funds. The A.O. asked the assessee to furnish the details of the purchase and sale in respect of companies which were hit by the provisions of section

MAHALAXMI INNOVATIVE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light our aforesaid observations

ITA 4856/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

68,85,369/-. The case of the assessee was thereafter taken up for scrutiny proceedings under Sec. 143(2) of the ‘Act’. That during the course of the assessment proceedings the A.O. observed that the assessee had P a g e | 3 claimed to have earned ‘Short term capital gain’ (STCG) of Rs.3,51,72,757/- and ‘Long term capital

MANTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

68 holding that since the assessee itself has admitted certain receipts form the above parties as genuine, the explanation as now offered cannot be accepted. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the appellant that the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 19.40 crores received as share capital ignoring the evidence

ACIT CC 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. MENTOR CAPITAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7408/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

68 holding that since the assessee itself has admitted certain receipts form the above parties as genuine, the explanation as now offered cannot be accepted. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the appellant that the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 19.40 crores received as share capital ignoring the evidence

MENTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7512/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

68 holding that since the assessee itself has admitted certain receipts form the above parties as genuine, the explanation as now offered cannot be accepted. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the appellant that the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 19.40 crores received as share capital ignoring the evidence

MANTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

68 holding that since the assessee itself has admitted certain receipts form the above parties as genuine, the explanation as now offered cannot be accepted. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the appellant that the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 19.40 crores received as share capital ignoring the evidence

MANTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

68 holding that since the assessee itself has admitted certain receipts form the above parties as genuine, the explanation as now offered cannot be accepted. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the appellant that the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 19.40 crores received as share capital ignoring the evidence

PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.CIR.4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable by virtue Circular no

ITA 6309/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani (DR)
Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 68Section 88E

68 of the Act. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called for.” The revenue being aggrieved of the order of Ld. CIT(A), has challenged the restricting the disallowance of dividend income to 5% and treating the 3 ITA Nos. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 Prabhudas Lilladher

COMET INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5253/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Comet Investments Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-4(1), 2Nd Floor, Office No.3, Kothari Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, 5/7, Oak Lane, Above Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gokul Restaurant, Fort, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacc2051Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 254(1)

68-79 6248/M/2012, order dt 04/03/2016 14. Sudhanshu S Pandhare v/s ITO dt 05/10/2016 80-85 15. Sunil Prakash v/s ACIT, dt: 08/03/2017 86-92 16. Smt. Sunita Jain vis ITO, , Ahd ITAT, ITA No-501 & 502/ 93-102 Ahd/2016, order dt 09/03/2017 5. The ld. AR of the assessee made more emphasis on the decision of Co- ordinate Bench

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3029/MUM/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh() & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 88E

68,60,000/-. The AO has finalized the assessment by following the directions of the CIT in order u/s 263 of the Act.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in this case, the original assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act was revised by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter, Ld. CIT) holding

MANJARI P. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1078/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1078/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Manjari P. Shah, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 302, Abich Apartments, Income Tax; Range 23(2), V. Sarojini Naidu Road, C-10, Pratyaksha Kar Mulund (West), Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Anqps5900A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Milind V. SahasrabudheFor Respondent: Mrs. N.V. Nadkarni, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

68,134 8.1.2008 36,19,980 39,39,390 10.1.2008 75,40,524 77,26,908 20.2.2008 7,58,640 11.3.2008 11,40,961 7,12,190 Total 7,52,65,347 The assessee vide her letter dated 30-11-2010 denied the above transactions. The contents of the letter are as under:- “ DECLARATION I, Mrs. Manjiri P.Shah, having

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 47(vii) of the Act. 6.7 In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that this allegation too is misconceived and not relevant. 7. Enquiries made by the Assessing Officer in respect of merger of ECHL with ISL: 7.1 Your Honour has also referred to the merger of ECHL with the ISL and made the following allegations