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

TDS amounts. Thus prima facie, onus is duly discharged by the appellant for such lenders. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition to the appellant's income under section 68

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

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision for standard

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

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision

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

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision for standard

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

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision for standard

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 the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

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 the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

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

Section 68, observing that the lenders were bereft of financial capacity, that the transactio bereft of financial capacity, that the transactions were devoid of any ns were devoid of any commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon. commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon. commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon

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

Section 68, observing that the lenders were bereft of financial capacity, that the transactio bereft of financial capacity, that the transactions were devoid of any ns were devoid of any commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon. commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon. commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon