10. M. Amareswara Rao v. Dy.CIl

178 TTJ 700Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#12336 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also reported as

157 ITD 657

Sections most often in play

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Judgments citing 10. M. Amareswara Rao v. Dy.CIl

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

…6.2 and 6.12][In favour of revenue]\nThe ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of M. Amareswara Rao v.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada [2016] 67\ntaxmann.com 15 (Visakhapatnam Trib)/[2016] 157 ITD 657 (Visakhapatnam\nTrib)/[2016] 178 TTJ 700 (Visakhapatnam - Trib)[08-01-2016) held that where\nassessee, having beneficial ownership of more than 10 per cent shares in a\nclosely held company, claimed to have received certain amount from company for\npurchase of land for company but failed to prove same by furnishing relevant\ndetails, such amount would come within ambit of section 2(22)(…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. FORUM SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3249/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…r Chemical (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [72 Taxman 279, 203 ITR 11, 114 CTR 185] 10. CIT Vs. Sunil Chopra [ 2011] 12 taxmann.com 496 (Delhi)/[2011] Taxmann 316 (Delhi)/[2-11] 242 CTR 498 (Delhi). 11. M. Amareswara Reassessment order V. Dy. CIT [157 ITD 657 / 136 DTR 153 /178 TTJ 700] 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A). 17. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition from the hands of the assessee and directing the Assessi…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. FORUM SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3248/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…r Chemical (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [72 Taxman 279, 203 ITR 11, 114 CTR 185] 10. CIT Vs. Sunil Chopra [ 2011] 12 taxmann.com 496 (Delhi)/[2011] Taxmann 316 (Delhi)/[2-11] 242 CTR 498 (Delhi). 11. M. Amareswara Reassessment order V. Dy. CIT [157 ITD 657 / 136 DTR 153 /178 TTJ 700] 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A). 17. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition from the hands of the assessee and directing the Assessi…

FORUM SALES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2472/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…r Chemical (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [72 Taxman 279, 203 ITR 11, 114 CTR 185] 10. CIT Vs. Sunil Chopra [ 2011] 12 taxmann.com 496 (Delhi)/[2011] Taxmann 316 (Delhi)/[2-11] 242 CTR 498 (Delhi). 11. M. Amareswara Reassessment order V. Dy. CIT [157 ITD 657 / 136 DTR 153 /178 TTJ 700] 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A). 17. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition from the hands of the assessee and directing the Assessi…

FORUM SALES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2471/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…r Chemical (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [72 Taxman 279, 203 ITR 11, 114 CTR 185] 10. CIT Vs. Sunil Chopra [ 2011] 12 taxmann.com 496 (Delhi)/[2011] Taxmann 316 (Delhi)/[2-11] 242 CTR 498 (Delhi). 11. M. Amareswara Reassessment order V. Dy. CIT [157 ITD 657 / 136 DTR 153 /178 TTJ 700] 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A). 17. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition from the hands of the assessee and directing the Assessi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. SEEMA DEVI BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6462/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…his business of real estate. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was great perversity and infirmity in findings and observations of Tribunal and, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside. 10. M. Amareswara Rao v. Dv.CIT [157 ITD 6571 136 DTR [153/ 178 TTJ 700] where Hon’ble ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that deemed dividend-Loan-beneficial ownership of more than 10 per cent shares in a closely held company- Assessable as deemed dividend.” 6. On the contrary, Ld. A.R. of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the written synopsis, which read as under:- “1. This is an appeal filed…

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed

ITA 274/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 14(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…of his business of real estate. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that there was great perversity and infirmity in findings and observations' of Tribunal and, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside. 10. M. Amareswara Rao v. Dy.CIl [157 ITD 657/13~ DTR 153/178 TTJ 700] 7 where Hon'ble ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that deemed dividend-Loan-beneficial ownership of more than 10 per cent shares in a closely held company- Assessable as deemed dividend.” 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order, written submissions filed by both the parties as well as the Paper Book fil…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHIV SARAN CHAND VED PRAKASH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5448/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…1 ITA No. 5448/Del/2013 & C.O125/Del/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.5448/DEL/2013 (A.Y 2004-05) ACIT Vs Shiv Saran Chand Ved Central Circle-03, Room No. 355, Prakash 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan 2042, Katra Tobacco, Khari Extn. Baoli, New Delhi New Delhi AAPFS4149B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O No.125/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2004-05) Shiv Saran Chand Ved Prakash Vs ACIT 2042, Katra Tobacco, Khari Baoli Central Circle-03, Room No. New Delhi 355, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, AAPFS4149B J…

10. M. Amareswara Rao v. Dy.CIl (178 TTJ 700) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax