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

unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹15,59,67,710/ 15,59,67,710/– under Section 143(3) of the Act under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

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. The abundance of these tends to convey the impression that the AO has been vested with vast discretionary powers and the application of a provision depends mainly upon how he utilises his discretion. The question could be asked whether, he, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is unfettered by any rule of law or procedure

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. The abundance of these tends to convey the impression that the AO has been vested with vast discretionary powers and the application of a provision depends mainly upon how he utilises his discretion. The question could be asked whether, he, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is unfettered by any rule of law or procedure

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

unexplained cash credit of the appellant if no satisfactory explanation has been provided in respect thereof proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. 1. 1. The appellant submits that the JAO, in his remand report, has relied upon the information furnished in the tax audit report of the appellant filed along with the return of income wherein the loans aggregating

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

unexplained cash credit of the appellant if no satisfactory explanation has been provided in respect thereof proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. 1. 1. The appellant submits that the JAO, in his remand report, has relied upon the information furnished in the tax audit report of the appellant filed along with the return of income wherein the loans aggregating

DCIT CC 7(4), MUMBAI vs. PODDAR RENAISSANCE REALITY PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS IMPERIAL RENAISSAICE RENIASANCE REALITY PVT. LTD), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Cc-7(4), Mumbai V/S. Poddar Renaissance Reality Room No. 659, Aaykar बनाम Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Bhavan, M.K. Road, Imperial Renaissance Mumbai-400020 Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 501/601, Aqua Marine, Carter Road, Mumbai-400050030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcp2657R Appellant/अपीलाथ" .. Respondent/"ितवादी

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 6.12 Further, I find that the decision of the Hon'b 6.12 Further, I find that the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the le jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Held, yes (In favor of assessee).” 2. ITO vs. Saffron ComtradePvt Ltd. (supra) “Section 68 of the Act is not applicable on the facts of the assessee^s case, since no money transaction took place between assessee and share subscribing companies. It is a simple case of shares being allotted in lieu of shares

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act) has already been validated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment in the case of Vodafone International Holding B.V v UOI (341 ITR 1) – refer page 30 and 31 of the case law wherein the investment structure has been reproduced. The structure clearly identifies:  Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd, as the ultimate holding

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

investment from the allottees there was no question of assessing the value of shares purchased from the allottees as unexplained cash credit. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Before us, the main ground raised by the assessee is that no addition could have been sustained 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\nstands dismissed

unexplained cash credit. Section 68\nprovides inter alia that if any sum is found credited in the books\nof a tax payer and he either does not offer any explanation about\nthe nature and source of such sum, or the explanation offered by\nhim is not satisfactory in the opinion of Assessing officer, then\nsuch sum can be taxed

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

unexplained cash credit. Section 68\nprovides inter alia that if any sum is found credited in the books\nof a tax payer and he either does not offer any explanation about\nthe nature and source of such sum, or the explanation offered by\nhim is not satisfactory in the opinion of Assessing officer, then\nsuch sum can be taxed

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

investment corporation, co-operative bank,\nprimary agricultural credit society, primary co-operative agricultural and rural\ndevelopment bank and NBFC, under various statutes. It is pertinent to note\nthat co-operative bank, primary agricultural credit society, primary co-\noperative agricultural and rural development bank shall have the meaning as\nassigned to them in the Explanation to section

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

investment corporation, co-operative bank,\nprimary agricultural credit society, primary co-operative agricultural and rural\ndevelopment bank and NBFC, under various statutes. It is pertinent to note\nthat co-operative bank, primary agricultural credit society, primary co-\noperative agricultural and rural development bank shall have the meaning as\nassigned to them in the Explanation to section

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

investments if possession of flats are not received within 24 months from the if possession of flats are not received within 24 months from the if possession of flats are not received within 24 months from the execution of the MOU. We find force in the argument of the ld. execution of the MOU. We find force in the argument

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

investment corporation, co-operative bank,\nprimary agricultural credit society, primary co-operative agricultural and rural\ndevelopment bank and NBFC, under various statutes. It is pertinent to note\nthat co-operative bank, primary agricultural credit society, primary co-\noperative agricultural and rural development bank shall have the meaning as\nassigned to them in the Explanation to section

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

investment corporation, co-operative bank,\nprimary agricultural credit society, primary co-operative agricultural and rural\ndevelopment bank and NBFC, under various statutes. It is pertinent to note\nthat co-operative bank, primary agricultural credit society, primary co-\noperative agricultural and rural development bank shall have the meaning as\nassigned to them in the Explanation to section

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, ()

unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The Tribunal therefore

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, ()

unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The Tribunal therefore