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

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

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

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

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

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

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

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

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

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

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

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

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

house, thread stitched into a coat which is under repair, or planks and nails and pitch worked into a ship under repair, become part of the coat or the ship.‖ 21. We have seriously deliberated on the aforesaid arguments advanced by the counsels for the Revenue. 22. Insofar as the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are concerned, we have

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

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

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

house property’ etc . The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) was issued. In the course of scrutiny, the learned Assessing Officer observed from one of the ledger accounts of the assessee namely ‘Sandeep Sabharwal Advance Account’ maintained in the books of the company that the assessee received

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Housing Organization Vs. Sumangal Sevices (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619. (xii)Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs. Tullow India Operation Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 789. (xiii)Surya Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1606. (xiv)Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2 – UNION OF INDIA

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ATUL BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be invoked. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned amount of Rs.71,08,35,311/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act with the observation that assessee had not filed relevant supporting documentary evidence to explain the above issue. 8. Further, he observed from the record submitted

SH. ATUL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be invoked. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned amount of Rs.71,08,35,311/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act with the observation that assessee had not filed relevant supporting documentary evidence to explain the above issue. 8. Further, he observed from the record submitted

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

SHRI PRADEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

house property, other sources and agriculture. For the year under consideration, assessee has filed the return of income on 29.09.2008 declaring an income of Rs. 35,13,02,662/-. In this case return of income of the assessee for the instant assessment year was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated

SHRI PRADEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

house property, other sources and agriculture. For the year under consideration, assessee has filed the return of income on 29.09.2008 declaring an income of Rs. 35,13,02,662/-. In this case return of income of the assessee for the instant assessment year was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

section 2(22)(e), as OFCD is one of the mode of securing an unsecured loan and there is no payment of loan or advance from accumulated profits; and secondly, there is no diversion of any interest bearing fund, because assessee has offered OFCD to a separate entity which has been subscribed by them, on which assessee is paying interest

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

house property, capital gain, and interest from bank. He is also a Director in one Company M/s Charu Home Products Pvt. Ltd. During the year assessee has received sums from above company where assessee is a director and also a shareholder holding 50 % shares. 04 The assessee filed its return of income on 30/7/2010 declaring income

ARCHANA SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraarchana Sharma Vs. Dcit Ii F/130, Nehru Nagar, Circle – 1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan No. Ayups 6374 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Shri Pushkar Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Ghaziabad Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4 AO thereafter, and after giving the credit of balance of assessee with the company at the time of making above payment of Rs.9,64,435/-, held the balance amount of Rs.64,05,565/- to be deemed dividend taxable as income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and made its addition

EICHER GOODEARTH INVESTMENT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi Iv Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi Pan: Aaace 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

House, 12, Commercial Comples Greater Kailash-II, (Masjid Moth) II, (Masjid Moth) New Delhi Sub: Proceedings u/s 263 of 263 of the I.T. Act 1961- M/s Eicher Goodearth Eicher Goodearth Investments Ltd. A.Y. 2007 Investments Ltd. A.Y. 2007-08 – reg- An examination of .ho income mination of .ho income-tax assessment records of M/s Eicher Goodearth M/s Eicher Goodearth Investments

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

22 of the Act which provides that the annual value of any building or land appurtenant thereto, other than the portion of such building/land occupied by the assessee for the purposes of the business would be taxable under the head 'income from house property'. 10.5 Ld. AR submitted that in the present case, let out is not of merely land