DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI vs. LATE SHRI SAWARMAL HISARIA THROUGH L/H SANDEEP HISARIA, MUMBAI

245D, the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the specified date. Specified date would be (i) in respect of an application referred to in sub-section (2A) or sub-section (2D), on or before the 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in respect of an application made on or after 1st day of June, 2007 within

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(3

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

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

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(3

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(3

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(3

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order, appeal filed by the assessee against

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order, appeal filed by the assessee against

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order, appeal filed by the assessee against

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order, appeal filed by the assessee against

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order, appeal filed by the assessee against

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order, appeal filed by the assessee against

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