ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), N-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aagpg8032N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Iv, New Delhi, Dated 27.02.2013, Passed For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. Whether The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 53,29,843/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Ignoring The Fact That The Advances Had Not Been Made In The Ordinary Course Of Business Expediency & The Assessee Had Been Regularly Repaying The Amount Received From The Company. Ii. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary From The Company, Namely, M/S A.K.G. Industries

Section 2(22)(e) are not applicable. In this connection, he relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal: M/s Percy Peshotan Batlivala Vs. ITO, ITA No. 4487/Del/2010, Dt. 20th i. July, 2012; 2012 (9) TMI –ITAT, Delhi Ishwar Chand Jindal Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 4967/Del/2012, dt, 29th May, ii. 2015; 2015 (8) TMI 119 – ITAT, Delhi

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

section 2(22)(e) is not applicable to running/current account. • Shri Satish Kumar Gupta vs. ACIT, TS-631-ITAT-2016 (Del) • CIT (TDS

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SANDEEP SABHARWAL, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. C. Gupta, Hon’Ble & Sh. O.P.Kant

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is also evident from the computation of income of the assessee (enclosed at PB 1), that the assessee has given the said premises on rent to M/s Overseas Connextion Ltd. and has received rent thereon, which has been duly disclosed in the computation. The said company has also deducted TDS

INVOLUTE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 12(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-30, Anand Niketan, Circle-12(2), Basement, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacs2041N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca; Ms Pallavi Sharma, Ca & Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.208/18-19/Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 18.03.2016, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

section 2(22)(e) were not violated at any stage and explanations and facts were duly furnished before him which have been either been ignored or not appreciated in correct perspective. 6.2 Thus where Appellant advances money to SIEL and amount received from SIEL is only the repayment of such money advanced. Ld. Tax authorities have not at all examined

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied to the loan or advance taken by it from other company. In view of foregoing observations we are unable to see any ambiguity perversity or any valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly grounds

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.

TDS has duly been deducted and the income has been accepted as ‘Income from other sources’ by the AO. Therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 where the Board has held that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions will not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

Section 2(22)(e) will not be applicable in the present case. The issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, Ground Nos. 23 to 23.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 38. As relates to Ground No. 24- 24.1 regarding disallowance of payments made for advisory services availed

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 2(22)(e) will not be applicable in the present case. The issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, Ground Nos. 10 to 10.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 34. As regards to Ground No. 11 to11.1 relating to disallowance of payments made for advisory services

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-I, vs. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PVT. LTD.

TDS)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Ms. Bhawna Bakshi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) 1. Two questions have sought to be urged on behalf of the Revenue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-I vs. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PVT. LTD.

TDS)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Ms. Bhawna Bakshi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) 1. Two questions have sought to be urged on behalf of the Revenue

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

2(22)(e) of the Act. We therefore sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal no.2 raised by the Revenue in its appeal vide ITA No.5031/Del/2024 vide Page 10 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 and the ground of appeal no.6 raised by the Revenue in its appeal vide ITA No.5029/Del/2024

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

2(22)(e) of the Act. We therefore sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal no.2 raised by the Revenue in its appeal vide ITA No.5031/Del/2024 vide Page 10 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 and the ground of appeal no.6 raised by the Revenue in its appeal vide ITA No.5029/Del/2024

SH. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Acit Prop. Of M/S. S. L. Enterprises Circle -38 (1) Vs A-41, Phase-Ii, Mayapuri New Delhi Industrial Area, New Delhi Pan Aanpp5995Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS on the interest paid (PB-95), therefore, it was a commercial transaction entered into between into between assessee and M/s. Ramsan Communication Limited. Section 2 (22) (e

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

22. TATA COSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED 719202 31000 5. A perusal of the records of the case it is seen that the exact nature of these payments vis a vis services rendered by the assessee has not been examined in the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2014-15. Why commercial establishments are making such payments and deducting TDS on such payment, impliedly claiming

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

section 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked. Otherwise also, for invoking the provision of deemed dividend, it is sine-qua-non that the payment made by a company to a person should be a beneficial owner of the shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power. Admittedly, M/s Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. was never a shareholder

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

section 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked. Otherwise also, for invoking the provision of deemed dividend, it is sine-qua-non that the payment made by a company to a person should be a beneficial owner of the shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power. Admittedly, M/s Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. was never a shareholder

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

section 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked. Otherwise also, for invoking the provision of deemed dividend, it is sine-qua-non that the payment made by a company to a person should be a beneficial owner of the shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power. Admittedly, M/s Y.M.C. Buildmore (P) Ltd. was never a shareholder

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

2(22)(e) of the Act were not applicable to the aforesaid transaction, since the loan or advance allegedly given by HFCL to the appellant was in the ordinary course of business of HFCL. 8.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in observing that the loan was not advanced by HFCL in the ordinary course