ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

deemed dividend has no legs to stand. Thus, on both these counts the addition u/s 2(22)(e) could not have been made. Here in this case, Ld. CIT(A) has not straightaway deleted the addition, in fact he has given the direction to the AO to verify, whether recipient company i.e. M/s. Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. which

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

deemed dividend has no legs to stand. Thus, on both these counts the addition u/s 2(22)(e) could not have been made. Here in this case, Ld. CIT(A) has not straightaway deleted the addition, in fact he has given the direction to the AO to verify, whether recipient company i.e. M/s. Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. which

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

deemed dividend has no legs to stand. Thus, on both these counts the addition u/s 2(22)(e) could not have been made. Here in this case, Ld. CIT(A) has not straightaway deleted the addition, in fact he has given the direction to the AO to verify, whether recipient company i.e. M/s. Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

deemed dividend has no legs to stand. Thus, on both these counts the addition u/s 2(22)(e) could not have been made. Here in this case, Ld. CIT(A) has not straightaway deleted the addition, in fact he has given the direction to the AO to verify, whether recipient company i.e. M/s. Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

deemed dividend has no legs to stand. Thus, on both these counts the addition u/s 2(22)(e) could not have been made. Here in this case, Ld. CIT(A) has not straightaway deleted the addition, in fact he has given the direction to the AO to verify, whether recipient company i.e. M/s. Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

deemed dividend has no legs to stand. Thus, on both these counts the addition u/s 2(22)(e) could not have been made. Here in this case, Ld. CIT(A) has not straightaway deleted the addition, in fact he has given the direction to the AO to verify, whether recipient company i.e. M/s. Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. which

VARDHMAN AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3994 & 3995/Del/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12 Vardhman Automobiles (P.) Ltd., Opposite Air Force School, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon-122001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccv6116D Vs The Ito, Tds Ward, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Gurgaon.

TDS of Rs.1,01,489/- on deemed dividend u//s 2(22)(e) for Rs.10,14,893/- and sustained by Ld.CIT

DCIT, CIRCLE- 36(1), NEW DELHI vs. COMMCORP INTERNATIOANL LLP, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) can only be assessed in hands of person who is a shareholder of lender company and not in hands of a person other than shareholder. In the present case undisputedly the assessee LLP is not a registered shareholder in the RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. therefore provision of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. A & A EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11

deemed dividend. 11. The assessee in its reply submitted that fresh loan received from RDFPL during the year was Rs. 25,20,000/- only out of which Rs 12,50,000/- was repaid to them and Rs. 24,10,354/- (net of TDS

GEETA BHASIN,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 32, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Geeta Bhasin, Vs. Jcit, C/O. Sandeep Sapra, Adv, C-763, Range-32, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Acdpb6005D (Appellant) (Respondent)

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T. Act.” 6. The learned authorised representative submitted that the ground number 1 and 2 are specifically dealt with in the other grounds, even otherwise they are general in nature. As the other grounds are required to be adjudicated on its merits, ground number 1 and 2 are not specific on an issue

DR. SUNIL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the appellant. The addition to the extent of Rs.25,45,305/- is therefore, sustained. The appellant gets the consequential relief. Ground no.1 of the appeal is partly allowed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before

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]

deemed dividend are not applicable for commercial transaction. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and held that the submissions of the assessee are baseless and only an CO No.222/Del/2016 afterthought. He noted that in the books of accounts of M/s Triupati Constwell Pvt. Ltd. in the ledger of the assessee, the amount

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

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 and holding as under: “The AO mentioned on page 5 of the asstt. order that M/s Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. had given the money to the appellant for purchase

SHRI ANUJ GUPTA,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Anuj Gupta, Vs. Ito, B-106, Sector-2, Ward-19(3), Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpg2385D Assessment Year: 2006-07 Pankaj Gupta, Vs. Ito, B-106, Sector-2, Ward-19(3), Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aadpg5224D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Dash, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 Order The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.12.2014 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By Both The Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. Counsel, at the outset, drew the attention of the Bench to the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 dated 12th June, 2017 and submitted that the Board has clarified that trade advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section

ACIT, CC- 1, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

TDS provisions or deduction of tax at source under wrong section. It is an undisputed fact that expenditure of Rs.1,67,60,279/- was in respect of reimbursement of salary of employees of SOMEL who were working on deputation with the assessee. The said employees continue to remain on the payrolls of SOMEL and the salary payments were made

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPN. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

TDS provisions or deduction of tax at source under wrong section. It is an undisputed fact that expenditure of Rs.1,67,60,279/- was in respect of reimbursement of salary of employees of SOMEL who were working on deputation with the assessee. The said employees continue to remain on the payrolls of SOMEL and the salary payments were made

SAHARA INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

TDS provisions or deduction of tax at source under wrong section. It is an undisputed fact that expenditure of Rs.1,67,60,279/- was in respect of reimbursement of salary of employees of SOMEL who were working on deputation with the assessee. The said employees continue to remain on the payrolls of SOMEL and the salary payments were made

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

TDS provisions or deduction of tax at source under wrong section. It is an undisputed fact that expenditure of Rs.1,67,60,279/- was in respect of reimbursement of salary of employees of SOMEL who were working on deputation with the assessee. The said employees continue to remain on the payrolls of SOMEL and the salary payments were made