ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. BHAGWATI COAL MOVERS (P) LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) as well as the loan amount deemed as income of the assessee under Section 2(22)(e

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

disallowance of interest, are erroneous. Therefore, the addition of Rs.95,45,816/-, is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 17, is hereby allowed.” 11. So far as the addition of Rs.19,34,21,760/- made by the AO on account of deemed dividend by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act made addition of Rs.91,47,56,196/- to the total income of the assessee. Thus, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.93,00,38,850/- as against the returned income 6 ITA 3561/Del/2016 of Rs.10,02,480/-. 7. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

2 (22) (e) of the IT Act against the assessee for making the addition. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of Rs.8,23,964/-. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 10. Before us, Learned DR has not pointed any distinguishing feature in the facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance under Rule 14A of the Income Tax Rules of Rs.2,12,74,766/- was also made. c. Addition of Rs.94,32,600/- as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. SEEMA DEVI BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Disallowance u/s 56 rws 2(22)(e) - Commercial transaction versus loan or advances - Held that:- sub-clause (e) of Section

M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

LATE RAMESH CHAND GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(4), Late Ramesh Chand Goyal Through L/H Smt. Manorma New Delhi Goyal, A-15/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aagpg7119L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.L. Dua, Adv. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

section 2(22)(e) of the Act, and relying on the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Special Bench, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhumik Colour Private Limited (2009) reported in 313 ITR (AT) 146, held the loan/advance of Rs.50,67,980/-as deemed dividend in the hand of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed