“Section 2(22)”

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

excessive payment, was available, on pure estimate basis. Re: Payment received on behalf of Hero Honda FinCorp. Ltd. (HFCL) deemed as dividend under section 2(22)(e) 8. Thatthe assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.71,97,00,000 to the income ... appellant under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on account of payments given by the customers of Hero FinCorp Ltd. (“HFCL”) to the appellant. 8.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer failed to appreciate that the payment given by the customers of HFCL

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. 5. Further, the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act made addition of Rs.1,32,61912/- to the total income of the assessee being accumulated profit of the current year available for distribution

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. 5. Further, the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act made addition of Rs.1,32,61912/- to the total income of the assessee being accumulated profit of the current year available for distribution

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the loans/advances may not be treated as deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It was explained by the assessee that this company is doing business with the assessee and in order to facilitate ... ledger of the assessee, the amount of Rs.24,25,07,712/- is given as advance to the assessee. Therefore, invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,16,57,861/- , which is the accumulated profit of current year available

Savera Reality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 364/Del/2021 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Acit Savera Realilty Pvt. Ltd. C-28, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Circle-22(2) Enclave, New Delhi C. R. Building, Ip Estate, Aalcs2625M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

year and held the 3 said amount to be a deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee as per provisions of Section 2(22) (e). 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Tci Exim P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4194/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4195/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tci Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Adv., Circle-25(2), E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact8397A Assessee By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.11.2021

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable as the impugned transaction is in the nature of business transaction and not in the nature ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v Madhur Housing and Development

Tci Exim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4194/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4195/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tci Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Adv., Circle-25(2), E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact8397A Assessee By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.11.2021

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable as the impugned transaction is in the nature of business transaction and not in the nature ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v Madhur Housing and Development

ITO, TDS, Ward- 1(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Bhartiya Urban Infrastructure and Land Development, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

recipient in accordance with section 46A of the Act and no such amount shall be treated as dividend in view of provisions of section 2(22)(iv) of the Act. Further, CBDT directed that as a matter of general principle, no fresh notice for assessment/reassessment/non- deduction of TDS at source ... where buy-back of shares has taken place prior to 01 June 2013 and the case is covered under section 46A read with section 2(22)(iv) of the Act. The circular also mentioned that in cases where notices have already been issued and assessment proceedings are pending, tax authorities

Kailash J Aeren, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2012-13

into merit that amount of Aerens Jai Realty Pvt. Ltd. was not held by the appellant as loans and advances hence provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned

M/S Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

business for purchase of property and was not an advance or loan. 7.1 That in any case and without prejudice the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were inapplicable and the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned A.O. has erred in invoking ... provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 8. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to have granted the refund to the assessee of Rs. 44,97,694/- and consequently interest u/s 244A of the Act of Rs. 2,91,194/- should have been

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

The appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

necessary that the person advancing the loan should be a shareholder and even beneficial ownership/shareholding would attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Travel Service vs. CIT (supra

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:-

Jammu. He has nowhere independently stated in the reasons that Rs.18.75 crore is a loan/advance and not inter-corporate deposit and, hence, section 2(22)(e) was attracted. g) The satisfaction of the AO is not his satisfaction, but, borrowed satisfaction. h) Further, it is a case of reason ... well went to the thirsty to quench his thirst. The artificial distinction attempted by the appellant is without any merit. Hence, provisions of section 2(22)(e) are equally applicable in this case, firstly, because ICD cannot be treated differently from loan and secondly, even an inter-corporate deposit cannot

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]

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 on account ... Marketing Ltd in which Shri Naveen Makrani and Manohar Lal are having 20% each in shareholding. Being convinced that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act squarely apply on the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking

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)

Vardhman Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd. but appellant was not the shareholder in that company during the year under consideration. Therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. 3. That the impugned assessment order is bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to record that even ... same were between two Corporate it was nothing but Inter Corporate Deposits (ICD) which in any case was outside the preview of Section 2(22)(e). 7. That Ld. CIT (A) was not correct in law to say Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) is now no more good

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

Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is wrong. 3. The Assessing Officer has erred in applying the provisions of section 2(22)e of the IT Act, 1961 to the transactions undertaken by the appellant with the other group companies of the Saamag Group in the course ... business. 4. The AO has erred in holding that section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not differentiate between loans and advances received for business purposes or for any other purposes. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal

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

therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be applied. It was submitted by the assessee that it is operating exchange wise separate bank account based upon the nature of transaction i.e. settlement A/c, dues A/c, client ... 22)(e) of the act. However, where there are cheque payments, the same has to be considered as loan/advance for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the act. 6. The AO further noted that JCPL, have granted advances in the nature of loan to the assessee, therefore

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

unwarranted and the same deserves to be deleted. 6) That on facts and in law, the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs under section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and 9 ITA Nos.-3153 to 3156/Del/2017 unjustified. The provisions of section 2(22 ... account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60,000/- and addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and long term capital gain declared on account on sale of shares of Rs.35,25,645/-. 21. Aggrieved against this, the assessee

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

unwarranted and the same deserves to be deleted. 6) That on facts and in law, the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs under section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and 9 ITA Nos.-3153 to 3156/Del/2017 unjustified. The provisions of section 2(22 ... account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60,000/- and addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and long term capital gain declared on account on sale of shares of Rs.35,25,645/-. 21. Aggrieved against this, the assessee

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

unwarranted and the same deserves to be deleted. 6) That on facts and in law, the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs under section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and 9 ITA Nos.-3153 to 3156/Del/2017 unjustified. The provisions of section 2(22 ... account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60,000/- and addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and long term capital gain declared on account on sale of shares of Rs.35,25,645/-. 21. Aggrieved against this, the assessee

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

unwarranted and the same deserves to be deleted. 6) That on facts and in law, the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs under section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and 9 ITA Nos.-3153 to 3156/Del/2017 unjustified. The provisions of section 2(22 ... account of Rs.70,000/-, bank accounts of Rs.60,000/- and addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and long term capital gain declared on account on sale of shares of Rs.35,25,645/-. 21. Aggrieved against this, the assessee