DCIT CC 3(1), MUMBAI vs. YOGESH JOGINDERNATH MEHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 2(22)(e) are not A.Y.2012-13 applicable when the transactions of loans/advances are made through journal entries even when the loans/advances were reflected in the balance sheets of the respective companies.? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law in directing the AO to verify the ledger accounts

M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

properties on behalf of M/s. Multiventure Agro and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. after due diligence and obtaining necessary clearances from the government authorities which could materialise. The AO added the same as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the ground that assessee has not filed any contract or proof to the effect that

ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

properties on behalf of M/s. Multiventure Agro and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. after due diligence and obtaining necessary clearances from the government authorities which could materialise. The AO added the same as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the ground that assessee has not filed any contract or proof to the effect that

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27/10/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. Ground no. 1 & 2, raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the addition made on account of on money cash payment for purchase of property at Delhi ignoring the incriminating documents/evidences received from DRI, Mumbai

CHANDRASEKHAR MARUTI MUSALE,THANE vs. ASST CIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5410/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" Shri Chandrasekhar Maruti Vs. Acit-10(2), Mumbai- Musale Flat No.1203/1204, 400020 12Th Floor, Carlyle Raheja Garden, Lbs Marg, Off. Tip Top Thane, Mumbai-400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm 3914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Chetan A. Karia राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. S.Pandian सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 21-5-2012. 2. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated The Addition Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) At The Hands Of The Assessee On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property & Other Sources. The Assessee Was Having Major Shareholding In 3 Companies Namely; (I) M/S.Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. (Ii) M/ S. Advance Scientific Equipment P.Ltd. & (Iii) M/S. Star Earth Minerals P.Ltd. During Assessment Proceedings, From The Replies Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Noticed That M/S. Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. Had Advanced An Amount Of Rs.31,00,000/- On 16.12.2008 To M/S. Advance Scientific Equipment P. Ltd. & M/S.

22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, house property and other sources. The assessee was having major shareholding in 3 companies namely; (i) M/s.Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. (ii) M/ s. Advance Scientific Equipment P.Ltd. & (iii) M/s. Star Earth Minerals P.Ltd. During assessment proceedings

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. DINA SUDHIR SHAH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act shall apply only when the amount was given as loan or advance. He submitted that the commercial transactions and trading transactions are excluded from the ambit of the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. He submitted that the assessing officer himself has assessed a sum of Rs.4.48 crores as deemed

VIJAYDEEP HOTELS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The Acit, बनाम/ Ltd., Cent. Cir-29, Vs. Hotel Bawa International, Aayakar Bhavan, Nehru Road Ext, Mumbai-400 020 Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1582D आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 951 To 953/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 Shri Karanveer Singh G. The Acit, बनाम/ Bawa, Cent. Cir-29, Vs. 22, Sahib Guru Angad Aayakar Bhavan, Niwas, Mumbai-400 020 Vitthal Nagar Co. Op. Soc. N.S. Road No. 22, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aejpb 8856F

House property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 18 Vijaydeep Hotels 41,32,500/- on account of the alleged deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act 1961. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. VIJAYDEEP HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The Acit, बनाम/ Ltd., Cent. Cir-29, Vs. Hotel Bawa International, Aayakar Bhavan, Nehru Road Ext, Mumbai-400 020 Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1582D आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 951 To 953/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 Shri Karanveer Singh G. The Acit, बनाम/ Bawa, Cent. Cir-29, Vs. 22, Sahib Guru Angad Aayakar Bhavan, Niwas, Mumbai-400 020 Vitthal Nagar Co. Op. Soc. N.S. Road No. 22, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aejpb 8856F

House property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 18 Vijaydeep Hotels 41,32,500/- on account of the alleged deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act 1961. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHREE BAL PROPERTIES & FINANCE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -2, 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan –Aaccs1776N M/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2(3)(2), 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 552, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan – Aaccs1776N Appellant By: S/Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.Rs Respondent By: S/Shri Salil Mishra, Cit D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Admittedly, in the present case the stamp duty qua the transfer of the property in question was paid on a Shree Bal Properties and Finance P. Ltd. Vs ACIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

22(b) and 26 of the DA clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

22(b) and 26 of the DA clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

22(b) and 26 of the DA clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties