CIT v. Raj Kumar

ITA 109/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

…ing not been given directly to the shareholder in the nature of loan or advance and, therefore, these provisions of section 2 (22) (e) are not attracted. xi) We are also inviting to your kind honour to the latest judgment of Delhi High Court as reported in 318 ITR 462 and in whicli, it has been held as under:- "The word 'advance' has to be read in conjunction with the word 'loan'. Usually attributes of a loan are that it involves positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money as loan : it generally carries an interest and there is an obligation of repayment. On the other hand,…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sh. Ashok Jindal, Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

ITA 2029/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

…ing not been given directly to the shareholder in the nature of loan or advance and, therefore, these provisions of section 2 (22) (e) are not attracted. xi) We are also inviting to your kind honour to the latest judgment of Delhi High Court as reported in 318 ITR 462 and in whicli, it has been held as under:- "The word 'advance' has to be read in conjunction with the word 'loan'. Usually attributes of a loan are that it involves positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money as loan : it generally carries an interest and there is an obligation of repayment. On the other hand,…

Nutun Malpani, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Ajai, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 34

…course of the business which cannot be treated as loans/advances contemplated by Section 2(22)(e). Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following Decisions: 1. The Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Raj Kumar (2009) 181 Taxmann 155 / 318 ITR 462, held that Trade advance which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transactions would not, in our view, fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(2) of the Act . 2. The Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Ambassador Travels (P) Limited 318 ITR 376 held that It is quite clear that the a…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

…ess activities. It was held that “the financial transactions cannot in any circumstances be treated as loans or advances received by the assessee.” The assessee-company also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 (Del.) in which the Hon’ble High Court interpreted the term “Advance” to mean such advance which carries an obligation of repayment. Here in, the sums of monies expended are towards purchase of land for the real estate business, such land being registered in the name of the member company. It was, therefore, held that “a trade 60 ITA.Nos.2053…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

…ess activities. It was held that “the financial transactions cannot in any circumstances be treated as loans or advances received by the assessee.” The assessee-company also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 (Del.) in which the Hon’ble High Court interpreted the term “Advance” to mean such advance which carries an obligation of repayment. Here in, the sums of monies expended are towards purchase of land for the real estate business, such land being registered in the name of the member company. It was, therefore, held that “a trade 60 ITA.Nos.2053…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

…ess activities. It was held that “the financial transactions cannot in any circumstances be treated as loans or advances received by the assessee.” The assessee-company also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 (Del.) in which the Hon’ble High Court interpreted the term “Advance” to mean such advance which carries an obligation of repayment. Here in, the sums of monies expended are towards purchase of land for the real estate business, such land being registered in the name of the member company. It was, therefore, held that “a trade 60 ITA.Nos.2053…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

ITA 1973/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

…ess activities. It was held that “the financial transactions cannot in any circumstances be treated as loans or advances received by the assessee.” The assessee-company also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 (Del.) in which the Hon’ble High Court interpreted the term “Advance” to mean such advance which carries an obligation of repayment. Here in, the sums of monies expended are towards purchase of land for the real estate business, such land being registered in the name of the member company. It was, therefore, held that “a trade 60 ITA.Nos.2053…

ITO, Coimbatore vs. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Private Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri . Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 2(22)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1691/CHNY/2015. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. M/s. Indoshell Automotive Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Systems India P. Ltd, Corporate Ward 2, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Coimbatore Coimbatore 641 021. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1973/CHNY/2015. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s.…

Indoshell Automotive Systems India P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1691/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri . Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 2(22)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1691/CHNY/2015. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. M/s. Indoshell Automotive Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Systems India P. Ltd, Corporate Ward 2, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Coimbatore Coimbatore 641 021. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1973/CHNY/2015. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s.…

Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5871/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Mr. Trilok Chand Acit Chaudhary, Central Circle 26, 39, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. 110030 Pan No. Aaepc0683P

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

…ssee further submitted that advance was received for purchase of land which will not fall 18 within the definition of deemed dividend and relied upon Board Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12.06.2017, Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462, CIT vs. Creative Dying and Printing P. Ltd. 318 ITR 476. Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore, submitted that appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 12. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the documents in question were seized from the possession of the assessee. Therefore, section 2…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dream Bake (P) Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1878/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Dream Bake (P) Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 296, Kalu Khan Road, Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkat-154 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 1189 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Ghosh, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 19-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.07.2016, Passed In Case No.1839/Cit(A)/4/Circle-10(1)/Kol/14-15, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Making Section 2(22)(E) Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹90,98,080/- In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Sec. 2(22)(E) Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹2,42,00,000/- In Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2015. Learned Departmental Representative Invites Our Attention To The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reading As Under:- “5. Ground No.2 This Ground Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ao In Making Addition Of ₹2,42,00,000/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act. This Matte Is Discussed From Para 4 To Para 4.3

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 DCIT, Circle-10(1), V/s. M/s Dream Bake (P) Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 296, Kalu Khan Road, Square, 3rd Floor, Kolkat-154 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AABCD 1189 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Choudhury, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Ghosh, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 19-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER…

Shri Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2663/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

ITA 2031/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

…ing money from the company has ended up in having debit balance of Rs.13,02,079/- as on 31.03.2010. In the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 27 of 37 [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Del) it was held that word “advance” which appears in the company of the word loan in section 2(22)(e) can only mean such an advance which carries with it an application of repayment. In the instant case, the financial transactions are not in the nature of commercial transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transa…

Shri Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

ITA 2030/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

…ing money from the company has ended up in having debit balance of Rs.13,02,079/- as on 31.03.2010. In the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 27 of 37 [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Del) it was held that word “advance” which appears in the company of the word loan in section 2(22)(e) can only mean such an advance which carries with it an application of repayment. In the instant case, the financial transactions are not in the nature of commercial transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transa…

Smt. Jullie Amit Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

ITA 2029/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

…ing money from the company has ended up in having debit balance of Rs.13,02,079/- as on 31.03.2010. In the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 27 of 37 [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Del) it was held that word “advance” which appears in the company of the word loan in section 2(22)(e) can only mean such an advance which carries with it an application of repayment. In the instant case, the financial transactions are not in the nature of commercial transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transa…

Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

ITA 1545/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

…ing money from the company has ended up in having debit balance of Rs.13,02,079/- as on 31.03.2010. In the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 27 of 37 [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Del) it was held that word “advance” which appears in the company of the word loan in section 2(22)(e) can only mean such an advance which carries with it an application of repayment. In the instant case, the financial transactions are not in the nature of commercial transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transa…

Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

ITA 6421/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

…ing money from the company has ended up in having debit balance of Rs.13,02,079/- as on 31.03.2010. In the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 27 of 37 [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Del) it was held that word “advance” which appears in the company of the word loan in section 2(22)(e) can only mean such an advance which carries with it an application of repayment. In the instant case, the financial transactions are not in the nature of commercial transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transa…

Dr. Manju Dang, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

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

…s evident from above pleadings and evidences and could not be termed as loan/advance given to the shareholder and hence provision of section 2(22)(e) is not applicable. Reliance is placed on several decisions as under: (i). CIT vs. Raj Kumar 228 CTR 506(Del)/ 318 ITR 462(Del) (ii). CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing P Ltd. 229 CTR 250(Del)/318 ITR 476(Del) Second contention is that in any case, no payment was made by DDLPL in the year under appeal as noted by AO at page 12 of the assessment order and supported by PB 102-103 and thus, no addition can be made in the hands of the ITA Nos. 6421/Del/2016 & 4538/Del/2…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Seema Devi Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6462/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2010-11 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SEEMA DEVI BANSAL, NEW DELHI VS. SHOP NO. 2, SARBATI ROOM NO. 332, ARA CENTRE, BUILDING, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, JAWALA HERI MARKET, NEW DELHI PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFPB3425R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Revenue has filed this appeal against the order dated 01.9.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 of the Ld.…

Ashish Dham, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6607/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR