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 U/s 2(22)(e) 5,95,27,614 [GOA No. — 6. 6] 7. Expenses for which bills / vouchers 10,20,212 6,48,726 — furnished seems to be in-genuine [GOA No. 7] [GOA No. 6] Depreciation

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 U/s 2(22)(e) 5,95,27,614 [GOA No. — 6. 6] 7. Expenses for which bills / vouchers 10,20,212 6,48,726 — furnished seems to be in-genuine [GOA No. 7] [GOA No. 6] Depreciation

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RITESH PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

deemed to be the current year's depreciation but it is well settled, as has been observed by this court in Bengal Immunity company Limited v. State of Bihar [1955] 2 SCR 603, 606 ; 6 STC 446, that the legalfictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced supra , which is common to all the years under consideration except change in figures, we find that the ld. AO in para

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced supra , which is common to all the years under consideration except change in figures, we find that the ld. AO in para

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(2), GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced supra , which is common to all the years under consideration except change in figures, we find that the ld. AO in para

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced supra , which is common to all the years under consideration except change in figures, we find that the ld. AO in para

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC CONZERV INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result the ground raised by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2009-10 Acit, Circle 7(1) Schneider Electric Conzerv India New Delhi Vs. P Ltd. Amalgamated With Schneider Electric India P Ltd. 9Th Floor, Tower Cit(A), Phase Ii Gurgaon Pan: Aaace6272F

deemed dividend in their hands for tax purposes. Ground No.12 of appeal is partly allowed.” 10.8. We do not find any infirmity in the above reasoning by Ld. CIT (A) and the same is upheld. 10.9. Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands dismissed. 11. Ground No. 8 Revenue is aggrieved with the addition that has been deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciation on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without providing AO opportunity of rebuttal under rule 46 A. 17. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.45,29,191/- made on account of deemed dividend

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

deemed dividend on substantive basis. 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add and alter any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal. 4 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 3. Briefly stated facts of the case at that the assessee, a Nonbanking Financial Company (NBFC), was engaged

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

deemed dividend on substantive basis. 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add and alter any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal. 4 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 3. Briefly stated facts of the case at that the assessee, a Nonbanking Financial Company (NBFC), was engaged

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

deemed dividend on substantive basis. 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add and alter any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal. 4 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 3. Briefly stated facts of the case at that the assessee, a Nonbanking Financial Company (NBFC), was engaged

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

deemed dividend on substantive basis. 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add and alter any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal. 4 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 3. Briefly stated facts of the case at that the assessee, a Nonbanking Financial Company (NBFC), was engaged

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SUBASH DABAS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Vs Subhash Dabas, Central Circle-18, Prop. Tirupati Construction Co., New Delhi. C/O Tirupati Bldgs. & Offices Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Dwarka City Centre, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Aagpd6947F Co No.221/Del/2016 (Ita No.2398/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Subhash Dabas, Vs. Acit, Prop. Tirupati Construction Co., Central Circle-18, C/O Tirupati Bldgs. & New Delhi,. Offices Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Dwarka City Centre, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Aagpd6947F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahavir Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd February, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. Co No.221/Del/2016 The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

deemed dividend tax. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and distinguishing the various decisions cited before him, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.78,05,000/- to the total income of the assessee under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.76,000/- being