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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

e) of Section 2(22) of the Act. The amount of Rs.32,13,367/- represented the provision for the interest which was to be paid by the assessee to AMPL on the old outstanding loan of Rs.1,76,39,425/- and further loan of Rs.11,68

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

2(22)(e) of the Act. Since the facts in the present case are similar to one as decided by us in ITA No.3717/M/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 in ground Nos.4 to 6 wherein we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, our finding in ground Nos.4 to 6 of ITA No.3717/M/2019

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

2(22)(e) of the Act. Since the facts in the present case are similar to one as decided by us in ITA No.3717/M/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 in ground Nos.4 to 6 wherein we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, our finding in ground Nos.4 to 6 of ITA No.3717/M/2019

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply on receipt of preference share application money by Appellant from BTPL; B. Addition of preference share application money received amounting to Rs.90.00,00,OOP/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68

RAVINDRA R. FOTEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2010 – 2011 Ravindra R Fotedar Acit 10(2) 7 Bharat Tirth Society, Mumbai Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan Aacpf1616R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act could not be invoked These findings were not shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner. 11. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.” 12. Further, we also noted that

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. REYNOLD SHIRTING P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, 3Rd Phase, Opp. Mittal Estate, R.No.32(1), Ground Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(22)(e) by following the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Badiani. Therefore, our interference is not required. 12. In respect of assessee’s appeal, the Ld. A.R. has submitted the chart before us for clarifying the transaction between assessee and M/s. B.R. Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. The assessee

REYNOLD SHIRTING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, 3Rd Phase, Opp. Mittal Estate, R.No.32(1), Ground Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(22)(e) by following the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Badiani. Therefore, our interference is not required. 12. In respect of assessee’s appeal, the Ld. A.R. has submitted the chart before us for clarifying the transaction between assessee and M/s. B.R. Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. The assessee

DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These cross appeals by assessee and revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-15, Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT(A)-15/IT-150/DCIT-9(1)/08-09 vide order dated 23.09.2009. Assessment was framed by DCIT-9(1), Mumbai u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These cross appeals by assessee and revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-15, Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT(A)-15/IT-150/DCIT-9(1)/08-09 vide order dated 23.09.2009. Assessment was framed by DCIT-9(1), Mumbai u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

TAURIAN ENGINEERING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 3129/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Taurian Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Jt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 302-A, Poonam Chamberes, (Osd)-4(3), फनधभ/ 3Rd Floor, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400018 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcm8782H (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri J P Bairagra प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri R A Dhyani सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 08.03.2016 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4.2.2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Upholding Of The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,09,75,000/- Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act.

section 2(22)(e) of the Act were clearly applicable and were rightly invoked by the AO. The ld DR argued that the assessee had in fact taken advances from TISPCL and contention of the assessee that these were taken for supply of machinery 7 to the said company was nothing but after thought to circumvent the provisions

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 06/12/2024 passed by ld. CIT(A)-53, Mumbai in relation to the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2020-21. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 2 Ramesh Jaisinghani Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

22 Taxman 6431256 ITR 395 (Bom.) that\nin an appeal under section 260A of the Act, the High Court can only\ndecide a question if it had been raised before the Tribunal even if not\ndetermined by the Tribunal. Therefore, no occasion to consider the\nquestion as prayed for arises.\n(c) In any case, we may point

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :— ** ** ** "(viia) where a firm or a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE GREATHILLS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

68,60,250/- 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA, who had partly allowed the appeal of assessee along with certain enhancements to the assessed income. 3.1 While deciding the appeal of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue of addition under section 2(22)(e

SKYLINE GREATHILLS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

68,60,250/- 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA, who had partly allowed the appeal of assessee along with certain enhancements to the assessed income. 3.1 While deciding the appeal of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue of addition under section 2(22)(e

ACIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JASUBHAI ENGINEERING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7519/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

68 to 74 of the paper book and it is also confirmed in writing which is placed at page 43 of the paper book. Therefore, he submitted that debentures will fall under the category of securities and this security cannot be termed as loan within the meaning of section 2(22)(e

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the Act. The relevant proviso is reproduced as is reproduced as under: “Provided further further that] where the assessee is a company (not being a where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum company in which the public are substantially interested

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

22, JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AEJPB 8856F 2 Vijaydeep Hotels .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri G.M. Dass सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :22.03.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement :20.06.2016 आदेश