2(22)(e) 5. CIT v. Sunil Chopra

242 CTR 498High Court2011#7283 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also reported as

201 Taxmann 316

Judgments citing 2(22)(e) 5. CIT v. Sunil Chopra

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjay DCIT Central Range-8 (3), Shantilal Jain 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B-72, 7, Kalpataru Residency, Maharshi Karve Road, Sion Koliwada Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 022 PAN No. AABPJ3761A Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta : Revenue by Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12/10/2022 : Dat…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. GURMEET SINGH ANAND, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 705/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Aashna Paul, CIT(DR)
Section 2(22)(e)

…thin the purview of deemed dividend but in assessee’s case it is not a commercial transaction as the assessee is not in the business of sale and purchase of property. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunil Chopra 242 CTR 498 (Del). 4 9. The Ld. AR refuted the above submissions of the Ld. CIT-DR and reiterated his submission made before the Ld. AO/CIT(A) that M/s. AMP is dealer in properties and the purpose for advancing the impugned sums to the assessee was for purchase of property. Since the sums were advanced to the assessee by M/s AMP for purchase of property, th…

PASL WINDTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/AHD/2017[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 2302 & 2366/AHD/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- VS Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCA 3022G Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Respondent by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4058/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY 2006-07 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAHCS8522R) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS5438A) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAGA DEVELOPERS (P). LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4932K) AY 2011-12 DCIT, CC-19, VS. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4952R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2603/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY 2006-07 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAHCS8522R) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS5438A) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAGA DEVELOPERS (P). LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4932K) AY 2011-12 DCIT, CC-19, VS. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4952R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2600/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY 2006-07 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAHCS8522R) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS5438A) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAGA DEVELOPERS (P). LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4932K) AY 2011-12 DCIT, CC-19, VS. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4952R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2599/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY 2006-07 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAHCS8522R) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAAMAG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS5438A) AY 2007-08 DCIT, CC-10, VS. SAGA DEVELOPERS (P). LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4932K) AY 2011-12 DCIT, CC-19, VS. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS LTD. NEW DELHI B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAJCS4952R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)…

DCIT CIR-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. SHRI ANIL ROY, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 156/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Partha Sarathi Paul, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 2(22)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI (Before Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) ITA No. 156/Ran/17 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 D.C.I.T, Cir-1(1), JSR Vs Shri Anil Roy PAN: ADCPR5511N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Partha Sarathi Paul, CA, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 09-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05 -04-2019 ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeal filed by the revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15,is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur Appeal No. 140/JSR/2016-…

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

…ann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) 9. Star 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 o…

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

…ann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) 9. Star 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 o…

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

…ann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) 9. Star 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 o…

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

…ann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) 9. Star 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 o…

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)

…203 ITR 11, 114 CTR 1851 where Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that provisions of section 2(22)(e) would apply to a company which had taken loan from its subsidiary. 9. CIT v Sunil Chopra f20111 12 taxmann.com 496 (Delhi)/f2011l 201 Taxman 316 (Delhi)/r20111 242 CTR 498 (Delhi) Tribunal deleted addition accepting assessee's contention that said advances were received against sale of property under terms of agreement dated 18-9-2003 and, therefore, money was taken by assessee in line of his business of real estate. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was great perversity and infirmity in findings and observ…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SANJAY PASSI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross

ITA 1450/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…f I.T Act. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to deemed dividend uls 2(22)(e) of I.T. Act: 1. CIT v Sunil Chopra [2011] 12 taxmann.com 496 (Delhi)/[2011] 201 Taxman 316 (Delhi)/[2011] 242 CTR 498 (Delhi) Tribunal deleted addition accepting assessee's contention that said advances were received against sale of property under terms of agreement dated 18-9-2003 and, therefore, money was taken by assessee in line of his business of real estate. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that there was great perversity and infirmity in findings and ob…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 274/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2012-13 JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA ACIT, CIRCLE-1, 219, RAILWAY ROAD, VS. MEERUT MEERUT – 250002 UTTAR PADESH (PANl AARPG5507B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Sumit Goyal, CA Department by : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut relevant to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:- “1. That the A…

ASHWANI KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kapoor, Vs. Ito, A-44, Kailash Colony, Ward-3(2), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aigpk9963L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Ashwani Kapoor, Circle-6(1), A-44, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aigpk9963L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rc Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 09/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri K Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri RC Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ested the claim of the assessee and supported the orders of the lower authorities. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PK Badiyani Vs. CIT 105 ITR 642 and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sunil Chopra 242 CTR 498 (Delhi). 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The brief facts in the present case are that assessee is a director with 36.30 % shareholding in the company M/s competent Holdings private limited. Both the assessee as well as that company is having one of the main business activities…