DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

SUDHIR DHINGRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

ANOOP THATAI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

reassess the “Total Income”. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 5,13,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend

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.:

reassessment under Section 147 and within jurisdiction of the ITO. 2. That learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the ITO was not bound to follow the instructions contained in CBDT's Circular No. 495 dated 22.9.1987 to the effect that deemed dividend

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

reassessed the income of the assessee Rs.1,10,19,412/- after making addition of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- as deemed dividend

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer taxed an amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- as deemed income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth. 7. Against the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer taxed an amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- as deemed income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth. 7. Against the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer taxed an amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- as deemed income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth. 7. Against the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer taxed an amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- as deemed income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth. 7. Against the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer taxed an amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- as deemed income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth. 7. Against the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide

SHRI ANIL NANDA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Anil Nanda, Vs Dcit, 12-C, Friends Colony, Circle-68(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aafpn4381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.8,25,64,675/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30Th October, 2009 Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 After Recording The Following Reasons:-

Deemed Dividend Dividend 29 G I Power Corporation Ltd,, ITAT ICD is different from loan and 419-435 New ... vs Assessee I.T.A No. Amritsar cannot be treated as a loan 305(Asr)/2014 Date of Order 23/03/2016 30 United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. Delhi High Approval by Commissioner 436-444 vs Cit & Ors Equivalent Court u/s 151 must be with

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GD GOENKA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., N- Acit, Circle-10(2), New Delhi 85, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacg0865A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 (In Ita No. 6553/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment of deemed dividend as the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts in respect of deemed

SMT. RUKMANI GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2003-04 Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Vs Acit, 47, Shardhanand Marg, Central Circle-25, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagpg8365G Assessment Year : 2003-04 Rukmani Gupta, Vs. Acit, 47, Shardhanand Marg, Central Circle-25, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaopg0280E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niren Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 3Rd July, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2003-04. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessees In

deemed dividend at their hands.” 12. A bare perusal of the above paras shows that it is a clear-cut direction by the Hon'ble High Court that the Revenue has to take corrective measure by treating the dividend income at the hands of the shareholders and tax them accordingly as otherwise it would amount to escapement of income