DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

7 2018-19 ITA/3001 20.03.2018 1,50,00,0001 23.03. 60,68,338.8 /MUM/20 2018 3 Sanjuia Sumati 25 Kothari 8 2019-20 ITA/3002 07.03. 17,56,544.0 11.03.2019 73,75,178. 76,24,821 /MUM/20 2019 0 94 25 Total 1,50,00,000 78,24,883 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Aggrieved

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

7 2018-19 ITA/3001 20.03.2018 1,50,00,0001 23.03. 60,68,338.8 /MUM/20 2018 3 Sanjuia Sumati 25 Kothari 8 2019-20 ITA/3002 07.03. 17,56,544.0 11.03.2019 73,75,178. 76,24,821 /MUM/20 2019 0 94 25 Total 1,50,00,000 78,24,883 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Aggrieved

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

7 2018-19 ITA/3001 20.03.2018 1,50,00,0001 23.03. 60,68,338.8 /MUM/20 2018 3 Sanjuia Sumati 25 Kothari 8 2019-20 ITA/3002 07.03. 17,56,544.0 11.03.2019 73,75,178. 76,24,821 /MUM/20 2019 0 94 25 Total 1,50,00,000 78,24,883 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Aggrieved

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

7 2018-19 ITA/3001 20.03.2018 1,50,00,0001 23.03. 60,68,338.8 /MUM/20 2018 3 Sanjuia Sumati 25 Kothari 8 2019-20 ITA/3002 07.03. 17,56,544.0 11.03.2019 73,75,178. 76,24,821 /MUM/20 2019 0 94 25 Total 1,50,00,000 78,24,883 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Aggrieved

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

7 2018-19 ITA/3001 20.03.2018 1,50,00,0001 23.03. 60,68,338.8 /MUM/20 2018 3 Sanjuia Sumati 25 Kothari 8 2019-20 ITA/3002 07.03. 17,56,544.0 11.03.2019 73,75,178. 76,24,821 /MUM/20 2019 0 94 25 Total 1,50,00,000 78,24,883 3001, 3002, 2990, 3000/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Aggrieved

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

section 94(7) (i) Disallowance of `3,68,85,513/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D (ii) Aggrieved

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

section 143(2) was issued on\n19/05/2023.\n3.8 Before the Ld.AO, the assessee submitted that in the course\nof her regular investment activity, units of mutual fund namely\nJM Balanced Fund- Quarterly Dividend Plan of Rs.1,00,00,000/-\nwas made on 20/03/2018 floated by JM Financials. It was\nsubmitted that during the period of holding the assessee received

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. DIBYA TRADING CO LLP, MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

68,74,023/-. The AO further stated that as per the investigation report of the DDIT, the investor in order to reduce their tax liability entered into sham transactions and received dividends and short term capital loss. Therefore, the AO stated that in such cases the dividend is not eligible for deduction u/s 10(35) of the Act and short

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

94 of the said Act can be applied in construing the effect of the document - A.V.N. Jagga Row V/s. CIT 166 ITR 862 (AP). h) The deeming part of section 68 deals with cash credits. In section 68 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year and he offers

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

94 of the said Act can be applied in construing the effect of the document - A.V.N. Jagga Row V/s. CIT 166 ITR 862 (AP). h) The deeming part of section 68 deals with cash credits. In section 68 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year and he offers

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 94(7) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the appellant is a regular investor and has also incurred losses of Rs.7,25,636/- in BOI AXA Equity Mutual Fund which has not been doubted by the AO. It is also noted that the appellant has also received dividend of Rs. 18,68

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. 2015 GROVER FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 94(7) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the appellant is a regular investor and has also incurred losses of Rs.7,25,636/- in BOI AXA Equity Mutual Fund which has not been doubted by the AO. It is also noted that the appellant has also received dividend of Rs. 18,68

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

7 ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 ₹4,18,82,630/– under Section 68, observing that the lenders were under Section 68, observing that the lenders were under Section 68, observing that the lenders were bereft of financial capacity, that the transactio bereft of financial capacity, that the transactions were devoid

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

7 ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 ₹4,18,82,630/– under Section 68, observing that the lenders were under Section 68, observing that the lenders were under Section 68, observing that the lenders were bereft of financial capacity, that the transactio bereft of financial capacity, that the transactions were devoid

THE ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

7. "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 74,60,68,166/- notwithstanding that the assessee has claimed the running current account transactions to be the Total Introduction in Capital

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

94(7), loss is to be restricted only to the extent of dividend received and not entire transaction to be treated as sham. 42. In the present case, the Assessing Officer himself allowed loss on sale of 12% units. Therefore, transaction is partly accepted as genuine. In such circumstances, treating dividend as unexplained cash credit under section 68

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

94(7) is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 5. Addition under section 68 of the Act treating

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

7-\n12-2020 which were produced in post-survey proceedings. Thus the\nAppellant has discharged the initial onus which lay on it in term of section\n68 by providing the identity of the creditor by giving complete address,\ncreditworthiness by giving PAN and genuineness by transactions through\nbanking channel. In the case of CIT V/s. Orissa Corpn