“deemed dividend”

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jakson Ltd., Noida

The appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,32,29,000/- made by AO on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred ... appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3.0 The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as far as the issue of deemed dividend was concerned, assessee company had received advance from group concern M/s Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd and both in the assessee company as well

Green Park Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act on additional payment of Rs.41,50,000/- towards purchase of land. iii) Addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.4,54,171/-. M/s Green Park Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... additional payment of Rs.40,50,000/. The assessee also got relief with respect to addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,54,171/. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. Thus, in effect

Rajeev Behl, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

upholding the penalty of Rs 82,65,709/- imposed by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of Disallowance of loss on shares, Deemed dividend, and on account of cash deposit in Bank. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the penalty ... partly allowed the appeal. However, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,89,29,665/- on account of loss on shares and deemed dividend of Rs. 46,62,150/-. The ld AO issued notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 30.12.2011. The assessee

Shri Anil Nanda, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Anil Nanda, Vs Dcit, 12-C, Friends Colony, Circle-68(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aafpn4381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.8,25,64,675/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30Th October, 2009 Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 After Recording The Following Reasons:-

particulars necessary for assessment. It is seen that the AO in the reasons 5 recorded u/s 147 of the Act has clearly mentioned the deemed dividend u/s 2(22) (e) of the Act amounting to Rs. 18.75 crore has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee ... Whether the amount was an Inter-corporate Deposit and different from unsecured loan. (2) Whether ICD is beyond the preview of being considered as deemed dividend. (3) Whether the appellant derived any benefit out of the transaction, so as to be taxed by treating the amount as deemed dividend

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

made by the Assessing Officer on account of amount received from Brahmand System Private Limited treating the same as deemed dividend by invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The other grievance relates to the disallowance of Rs. 2,42,110/– made by the Assessing ... Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking it to explain as to why the loan amount should not be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. In its reply, the assessee contended that it has received Rs.78 lakhs from the said company

Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Vardhaman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 814-815, 8Th Floor, Shahpur Tirath Circle-26(1), Singh Tower, Community Center, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aaccv6445M (Appellant) (Respondent)

facts to make the addition of Rs. 1,18,42,525/- for A.Y. 2014-15 treating the advance amount for business transactions as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2. That the appellant company gave1 and received the amount to M/s. Vardhman Estate & Developers ... Officer failed to record that even if there are common shareholders in both the companies the additions cannot be made under the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Since appellant company herself is not share holder in Vardhman Estate Developers (P) Ltd. 4. That

Saamag Infrastructure Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit B-67, Sarita Vihar Central Circle – 19 New Delhi - 110076 New Delhi

parte. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as settled legal positions, the addition of Rs.5,25,000/- as Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is wrong. 3. The Assessing Officer has erred in applying the provisions of section

ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi vs. Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[A.Y 2012-13]

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by AO on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before ... fact, the share holding was 95% and since the assessee has taken loan/advance of Rs. 1.50 crores, the Assessing Officer treated the same as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition accordingly. 8. The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gen X Commodities (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dcit, M/S Gen X Commodities (P) Central Circle-29, Ltd. Room No.318, 3Rd Floor, Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110027 Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi Pan-Aaaca2969B Revenue Assessee

granted advances in the nature of loan to the assessee, therefore, the payment received from the JCPL by assessee is to be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. He accordingly invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act made addition of Rs.91 ... erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 91,47,56,196/- made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. d. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred

ACIT, Panipat vs. M/S. Jindal Fibers, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. M/S. Jindal Fibres Circle, Panipat E-1, Industrial Area, Panipat Pan No. Aadfj 7652 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021 Order Per Suchitra Kamble, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Karnal Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: 1. “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A), Karnal Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.54,20,361/- Made By The Ao U/S 2(22)(E) On Account Of Deemed Dividend Since There Are Only A Few Sale Purchase Transactions & The Rest Are Actually Loans & Advances. 2. Further, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A), Karnal Has Also Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Acit Vs. Jindal Fibers. A.Y. 2012-13 2 Rs.54,09,565/- Made By The Ao U/S 2(22)(E) On Account Of Deemed Dividend As Per The Information Submitted By The Assessee At Time Of Assessment Proceedings. 3. Further, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A), Karnal Has Also Erred In Law In Deleting The Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest Of Rs.5,48,592/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Negative Partner Capital. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. At The Time Of Hearing, We Inquired From The Ld. Dr As To Whether The Tax Effect Of The Grounds Raised By Revenue Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Prescribed By Cbdt For Filing The Appeals To Which He Fairly Admitted That The Tax Effect Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Prescribed By Cbdt For Filing The Appeals.

Karnal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.54,20,361/- made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend since there are only a few sale purchase transactions and the rest are actually loans and advances. 2. Further, on the facts ... addition of ACIT vs. Jindal Fibers. A.Y. 2012-13 2 Rs.54,09,565/- made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend as per the information submitted by the assessee at time of assessment proceedings. 3. Further, on the facts and in the circumstances

Ashwani Talwar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

facts are identical as were in Assessment Year 2004-05 except two additional additions in the form of deemed dividend and bogus long term capital gain. In the present case, Ld.CIT(A) sustained additions related to cash deposits in PPF account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60

Ashwani Talwar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

facts are identical as were in Assessment Year 2004-05 except two additional additions in the form of deemed dividend and bogus long term capital gain. In the present case, Ld.CIT(A) sustained additions related to cash deposits in PPF account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60

Ashwani Talwar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

facts are identical as were in Assessment Year 2004-05 except two additional additions in the form of deemed dividend and bogus long term capital gain. In the present case, Ld.CIT(A) sustained additions related to cash deposits in PPF account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60

Ashwani Talwar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

facts are identical as were in Assessment Year 2004-05 except two additional additions in the form of deemed dividend and bogus long term capital gain. In the present case, Ld.CIT(A) sustained additions related to cash deposits in PPF account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

position of closing balance of the impugned year is mentioned at Page Number-6 of the PCIT order. 12.2 He submitted that provisions of deemed dividend are not applicable on assessee, since the assessee has not received any funds in the shape of loan or advances rather given the funds ... previous years. Therefore the applicability of deemed dividend concept, if any, would be in the hands of the persons to whom advances were given and not in the hands of assessee. 12.3 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that beside the above inter corporate deposits the assessee has also

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Neena Kandhari, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Assessing Officer has treated the loans and advances given to the assessee for sums aggregating to Rs.1,97,99,254/- as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e). 3. Ld. CIT (A) after detailed discussion and on perusal of the material placed on record has deleted the said addition after observing ... No.812/DEL/2018 It has been clearly held in the cases cited above that advance given by the company for purchase of land cannot amount to deemed dividend. It was further held that sec 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked in the case of business advance. In the case of the appellant

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

customers of HFCL to the appellant was not in the nature of loan or advance given by HFCL to appellant so as to constitute deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 10.2 Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer failed

Balbir Singh Kohli, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 14(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

declared by the said company other than an amount of Rs.2 lac which is taxable in the hands of Shri Balbir Singh Kohli as deemed dividend u/s 2(22) (e) of Act. The Assessing Officer observed that after perusal of Shri Balbir Singh Kohli it has shown only income from ... before CIT(A) in the case of the company. The said company has not contested the observation of the Assessing Officer regarding deemed dividend taxable in the hands of Shri Balbir Singh Kohli. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29/3/2018. The assessee filed reply

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Genesis Colors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3941/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs M/S Genesis Colors Pvt. Ltd., Circle-10(1), Flat No. 3A/1, Taj Apartments New Delhi Rao, Tual Ram Marg, New Delhi-11002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg4825H Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Akshit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.03.2021 Order

case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.12,94,50,034/- made by the AO on account of deemed dividend ignoring the fact that loan and advances received by the assessee shareholder from certain company against sale of a property is also treated as deemed