Smt. Nigam Chawla v. ITO

SHRI PRADEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…of the said loan/advances which further establishes no such business transaction took place later also. As such the claim of the assessee that this is a business deal lacks basis entirely and judicial decision cited by the assessee (Smt. Nigam Chawla vs. ITO, 28 SOT 503) is not only distinguishable on facts but is also not applicable in this case on principle. On examining the Balance sheet of M/s PPSPL as on 31.03.2008, it is seen that there was accumulated profits to the extent of Rs. 22,28,293/- and accordingly the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is computed to the extent of accumulated profits amounting to Rs.…

SHRI PRADEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…of the said loan/advances which further establishes no such business transaction took place later also. As such the claim of the assessee that this is a business deal lacks basis entirely and judicial decision cited by the assessee (Smt. Nigam Chawla vs. ITO, 28 SOT 503) is not only distinguishable on facts but is also not applicable in this case on principle. On examining the Balance sheet of M/s PPSPL as on 31.03.2008, it is seen that there was accumulated profits to the extent of Rs. 22,28,293/- and accordingly the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is computed to the extent of accumulated profits amounting to Rs.…

CIT vs. INTERNATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…the relevant assessment year also filed. The assessee has also explained the business exigencies under which such amount were paid. The assessee has in support relied upon the decisions based on ITAT's Delhi bench in the case of Smt. Nigam Chawala reported as 28 SOT 503 (Delhi), Bombay oil Industries Ltd. 28 SOT 383 (Mumbai)." The Assessing Officer did not dispute or contest the said contention of the respondent-assessee in the first appellate proceeding in the said remand report. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same are dismissed. 4"U7 lle | '' Lv SANJIV KIIA…