“deemed dividend”

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms of aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

assessee’s appeal are allowed. 6. The next issue raised in the appeal is regarding taxation of Rs. 1,39,68,442/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. During the year, the assessee has accepted interest bearing loans/advances @12% per annum from group companies ... meet the working capital requirements on need basis. The AO treated the loan from subsidiary as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,39,68,442/-. The DRP did not accept assessee’s objections and upheld the addition made

Sumit Mohansingh Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharysumit Mohansingh Vs. Assistant Commissioner Gandhi, 44/43, Movie Of Income Tax-25(1) Tower, Oshiwara Near Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Yamuna Nagar, Andheri Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To (W) Mumbai – 400053 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Atzps3217K Appellant .. Respondent

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,90,000/- made by the A.O u/s 2(22)(e) as alleged deemed dividend. The appellant prays that the A.O be directed to delete the additions made. 2. The appellant craves leaves to add to, alter and/or amend ... order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.6,90,000/- made by the assessing officer u/s 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend. There was a delay in filing this appeal by 103 days and the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay in filing

DCIT Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bla Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

controversy in this case has arisen on that account. We are not called upon to decide whether the amount should have been assessed as deemed dividend or not. The fact remains that this amount has been treated as dividend and this has been accepted by all the authorities right from

Pravin Laxmichand Chheda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pravin Laxmichand Vs. Acit – 24(3) Chheda Room No. 413, 4Th 302, Aavishkar Society, Floor, Piramal Sv Road, Irla Bridge Chambers, Parel Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc1278P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Yogesh Thar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. (A) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer Of Assessing The Loan Taken From Sadguru Krupa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Herein Referred As "Company") On 05.05.2013 Of Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. Rs.25,00,000/- As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (B) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Company Did Not Have Accumulated Profits As On The Date On Which The Loan Was Advanced. (C) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Manner Of Computation Of Accumulated Profits Adopted By The Learned Assessing Officer. (D) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Company Had Followed The Principles Of Revenue Recognition Laid Down In Accounting Standard 9 Issued By Icai. (E) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law In Relying On The Statement Of Mr. Dllip Porwal Without Giving Your Appellant The Opportunity To Cross-Examine Him. (F) Your Appellant Prays That The Additions Made U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Against The Provisions Of Law & Against The Principals Of Natural Justice & May Please Be Deleted.

loan taken from Sadguru Krupa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (herein referred as "Company") on 05.05.2013 of Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. Rs.25,00,000/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the company ... days Commercial profit as on 06.05.2013 37,91,392 3. Further, the assessee was issued show cause notice to treat loan transaction as deemed dividend. In compliance, the assessee has filed submissions on various dates explaining the nature of transactions. Finally the A.O having dealt on the facts and submissions