M/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

section 37 of the A in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: ct observing as under: “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director

M/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

section 37 of the A in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: ct observing as under: “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

section 37 of the A in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: ct observing as under: “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director

M/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

section 37 of the A in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: ct observing as under: “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director

ACIT, CENRAL CIRCLE-4, , THANE vs. M/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

section 37 of the A in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: ct observing as under: “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI vs. MM/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

section 37 of the A in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: ct observing as under: “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director

M/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

section 37 of the A in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: ct observing as under: “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

undisclosed income would be years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

undisclosed income would be years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income under\nsection 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this special\nleave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is\nreceived by the assessee- company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose\nnames are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to\nreopen their individual assessments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. K K VENTURA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands\ndismissed

income of the assessee from undisclosed sources as\nper the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nComments

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:

undisclosed income, since the said amount has already been included in sales and hence in total Income. The honorable Delhi High Court accepted the contention if assessee. 4.Salem Sreeramavilas Chit Company (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS [2020] 114 taxmann.com 492 (Madras) Section 69A, read with section 153, of the Income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Section 68 of the Act\ncannot be applied in respect of cash deposits which have been duly recorded\nin the books of account and have already been considered as income in the\nreturn of income filed by the assessee. In assessee's case the assessee had\nduly recorded the cash sales of Rs.3,44,86,172/- excluding

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. 'A' STAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

68-690. Under income from house property, there is concept of deemed to be let out u/s 23(1 )(a) of the Act. Similarly section 41 deals with remission of liabilities as deemed income. Section 44AD to 44BBB deal with presumptive income as does section 50C and 50D in the Act. No doubt the decision in the case of Fakir

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN STAR DIAMONDS ITERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

68-690. Under income from house property, there is concept of deemed to be let out u/s 23(1 )(a) of the Act. Similarly section 41 deals with remission of liabilities as deemed income. Section 44AD to 44BBB deal with presumptive income as does section 50C and 50D in the Act. No doubt the decision in the case of Fakir

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act of the recipient company. Further, reliance in this regard is also placed

DCIT 29(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRTI RAMJI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3341/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-29(2) बिधम/ Kirti Ramji Kothari Room No.422, 4Th Floor, A/7, Maheh Krupa Devi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C. Dayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra (E), Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400080. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepk3216C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 14.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim That The Profit Of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- From F & O Trading Was To Be Assessed Either As Business Income Or Under Either Of The Heads Of Income A To F Of Section 14 Of The Lt. Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investigation & Analysis Of The A.Y.2015-16 Facts As Borne Out By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Clearly Establish That The Profit Was Bogus & Sham Earned Through Synchronized Trading In Illiquid Stock Option & Accordingly The Same Was Correctly Assessed U/S 68 Of The It Act.

undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act should be treated as business income. The _ principles laid down by this

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

undisclosed income of the assessee for making alleged cash payment to Mr. G.M. Kakde. 21. The brief facts The brief facts are that Annexure A-3 was seized from the 3 was seized from the premises of the assessee and that at page no.3 essee and that at page no.3 therein certain noting erein certain noting of amounts was stated

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 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits [Loans] - Assessment year 2003-04 - During assessment proceedings Assessing Officer noticed that opening balance of unsecured loans was Rs. 1 crore while closing balance of unsecured loans in preceding year was Rs. 60 lakhs - He added amount of difference as undisclosed