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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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 for the AO to believe

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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 for the AO to believe

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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 for the AO to believe

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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 for the AO to believe

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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

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 of the Income

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:-

u/s 2 (22) (e) of the Act. 5.9 After due consideration of the facts it is held that the AO has rightly made the addition invoking the provision of section 2(22) (e) of the I.T. Act and treating the amount of Rs. 18.75 crore as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant Sh. Anil Nanda.” 10 8. Aggrieved

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

ASHWANI KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kapoor, Vs. Ito, A-44, Kailash Colony, Ward-3(2), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aigpk9963L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Ashwani Kapoor, Circle-6(1), A-44, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aigpk9963L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rc Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 09/11/2017

reassessment proceedings. The assessee submitted that the above sum was received by assessee for advance against sale of property at basement of A-44, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and therefore, it is a business transaction hence, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply. The ld Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and treated

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 proceedings under Section 147 of the Act upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This ground was not argued before us and, therefore, we dismiss it as infructuous. 8. In grounds no. 2 to 4, the assessee has challenged the addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands