COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

dividend is taxable by the concern, viz., the recipient which is the assessee in the instant case. According to her, such a deemed provision and a fiction created by the Legislature had to be taken to its logical conclusion, as highlighted by a Full Bench of this Court as well in Andaleeb Sehgal vs. Union of India

EXOTICA HOUSING & INFRSTRUCTURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 8(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 3. In the present appeal the assessee challenged the addition of Rs.2,88,92,817/- made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of commission agent and property

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

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the I. T. Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has simply relied upon the submissions of the assessee that "the amount of Rs.20,40,000/- was security towards rent and classified in the Companies Act under the head "Advances recoverable

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DLEHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

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 on wind mill Not quantified 3,59,99,936 8. [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 1] — 9. Rent paid for Director

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 on wind mill Not quantified 3,59,99,936 8. [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 1] — 9. Rent paid for Director

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 on wind mill Not quantified 3,59,99,936 8. [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 1] — 9. Rent paid for Director

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRASIDH LEASING LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Housing Udyog, Marygold Estates etc.). The assessee could be required to mobilize these funds within 3 days, if Ginza Industries Ltd. recalled it or within a day if it was required to block deals in purchase of licenses. Would it be possible for the assessee to sell off its shares and call all its advances back

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SANJAY PASSI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross

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

house property and hence section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. By now it is judicially settled that money received for a transaction relating to sale of property cannot be covered u/s 2(22)(e). Therefore, Ld. CIT (A)'s was justified in deleting the addition. Reliance is placed on the following: - DCIT vs. Smt. Vaishnavi Tekumalla, ITA No. 493/Bang/2011

DR. MANJU DANG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

house property. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.2,50,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIKRAM KRISHNA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal of revenue are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. K. Yadav & Sh. Prashant Maharishiito Vs Vikram Krishna Ward-6(1), Room No. 380C, 12, School Lane C. R. Building New Delhi New Delhi Aadpk4288P (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv & Mr. Manoj Nagreth, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2018

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, on account of sum received by the assessee from M/s Charu Home Products Pvt. Ltd. 02 The Revenue has raised effectively two grounds of appeal which are as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the i. Page

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WIG INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has not been examined; and redemption of mutual funds by the assessee during the year should be treated as ‘business income’ as against the capital gains declared by the assessee. The assessee is a partnership firm and one of the clauses in the Partnership Deed was to invest in equity and debt funds

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WIG INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has not been examined; and redemption of mutual funds by the assessee during the year should be treated as ‘business income’ as against the capital gains declared by the assessee. The assessee is a partnership firm and one of the clauses in the Partnership Deed was to invest in equity and debt funds

CIT vs. FRANCIS WACZIARG

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 11. It is noticeable from the aforesaid grounds that the Revenue did not specifically challenge the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that income from the three properties was taxable under the head ‘income from business or profession’ and not under the head ‘income from house