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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO in a block assessment u/s 158BC, the provisions of which are restrictive than those of section 153A. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there was a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act but has directed to make\nthe addition in the hands of Shri Chetan Seth, being the common director of both these\ncompanies and having the majority of the shareholding therein i.e. 54.2% and 28% of shares of\nrelied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

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 in cases where loans/advances were made to other concerns/firms etc. would be taxed in the hands

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

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. He has deleted the addition on the grounds that the said amount was advanced for the business purposes and hence a commercial transaction not covered within the meaning of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. It was explained to the AO that the companies have received the money

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

HARMANDER SINGH SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act\npertaining to assessment year 2012-13.\n\n2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed\nhis return of income on 30.07.2012, declaring income of INR\n30,42,800/-. The assessee is Director of M/s HBN Dairies & Allied\nLtd. wherein he is having share holding