ARVIND HANJARIMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31 (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

section 68 of the Act and disallowed ₹.25 Lakhs. Further, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has debited interest expenditure of ₹.64,932/- towards the above unsecured loan and accordingly, he disallowed the same. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions wherein assessee has raised grounds of appeal objecting reopening of assessment

ARVIND HANJARIMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31 (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

section 68 of the Act and disallowed ₹.25 Lakhs. Further, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has debited interest expenditure of ₹.64,932/- towards the above unsecured loan and accordingly, he disallowed the same. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions wherein assessee has raised grounds of appeal objecting reopening of assessment

ARVIND HANJARIMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31 (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

section 68 of the Act and disallowed ₹.25 Lakhs. Further, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has debited interest expenditure of ₹.64,932/- towards the above unsecured loan and accordingly, he disallowed the same. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions wherein assessee has raised grounds of appeal objecting reopening of assessment

ASSTT. CIT - 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL HOLDING CORPORATION P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(1)(1), M/S Global Holding 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M.K. Road, 201A, Janmbhoomi Chambers, Mumbai-400020. 29 Walchand Hirachand, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038. Pan No. Aaacn 8301 L Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr : Assessee By Mr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Ar : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

section 245D(4) of the Act would relate to the of the Act would relate to the determination of the total income of the assessee for that determination of the total income of the assessee for that determination of the total income of the assessee for that assessment year and such order is conclusive and cannot assessment year

GROVER VINEYARDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Ward M/S Grover Vineyards 1(1)(4),531 A/579 Pvt. Ltd., 107/8, 1St Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Arcadia, N.C.P.A. M.K.Road Lane, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Grover Vineyards Income Tax Officer Ltd. Anand Bhavan, 348, Ward 1(1)(4) Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent

section 245A(b). In that case the Commissioner of Income Tax was directed by the Commission to submit a factual report u/s 245D(3) on several aspects including, inter alia, the following: “(b) To verify the genuineness of loans and creditworthiness of the entities who are said to have given loans of Rs.3 crore each i.e. M/s Tristar Agencies

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. SURESH GURUBUXSING WADHWA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Act, no addition could be made. It was further held that if the revenue’s case was that the share applicants are bogus shareholders, then it was for the revenue to proceed by reopening of assessments of such shareholders and assessing them totax in accordance with the law and it would not entitle the revenue

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), MUMBAI vs. SURINDER ANANTRAM SABHLOK, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Act, no addition could be made. It was further held that if the revenue’s case was that the share applicants are bogus shareholders, then it was for the revenue to proceed by reopening of assessments of such shareholders and assessing them totax in accordance with the law and it would not entitle the revenue

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act in respect of loan transactions. 39. We have already decided identical issue in ground Nos.7 & 8 in ITA No.4060/M/2019 A.Y. 2008-09 and therefore our decision on ground Nos.7 & 8 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to ground Nos.9 & 10 of this appeal as well. Accordingly, ground Nos.9 & 10 are dismissed. 40. The appeal of the Revenue

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act in respect of loan transactions. 39. We have already decided identical issue in ground Nos.7 & 8 in ITA No.4060/M/2019 A.Y. 2008-09 and therefore our decision on ground Nos.7 & 8 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to ground Nos.9 & 10 of this appeal as well. Accordingly, ground Nos.9 & 10 are dismissed. 40. The appeal of the Revenue

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,175 as assessable for the assessment year 2001-02. Referring to the reports filed by the CIT under section 245D

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

245D, on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment. Explanation.—For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income,— (a) the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

245D, on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment. Explanation.—For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income,— (a) the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

245D, on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment. Explanation.—For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income,— (a) the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

245D, on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment. Explanation.—For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income,— (a) the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken

LEENA K. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3) , MUMBAI

68 of the Act. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 7. record. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed reliance on the written submissions filed before the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer placed before us as part of the paper-book, while the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order passed

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

68,175 as assessable for the assessment year 2001-02. Referring to the reports filed by the CIT under section 245D

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

68,175 as assessable for the assessment year 2001-02. Referring to the reports filed by the CIT under section 245D

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Us, The Effective Issue To Be Decided In These Appeals Is As To Whether The Ld. Administrative Cit (Ld. Cit) Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case By Treating The Order Of The Ld. Ao As Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

68,175 as assessable for the assessment year 2001-02. Referring to the reports filed by the CIT under section 245D