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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

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

section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee on such wrong presumption of facts. Therefore, for this reason also we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in respect of the deletion of addition made under section 2(22)(e). Ergo, there was no loan or advance given

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

section 2(22)(e), do not apply to the facts of the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on account of deemed dividend of Rs. 19,34,21,760/-, is hereby deleted.” 12. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

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:-

section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to trade advances. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the following decisions:- Sr. Page No Citation Court Issue Para No. 1 Dcit vs. p c chandra holdings ITAT, 2(22)(e) ICDS are not Loans 1-13 pvt ltd. ITA No. 1600/KOL KOLKATA and Advances. 2011, Date Of Order

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

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

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. • 177 ITR 393 (Bom), CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia • 173 Taxman 407 (Del), Ambassador Travels vs. • (2005) 1 SOT 142 (Mum), Seamist Properties Ltd. vs. ITO 68

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

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

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. • 177 ITR 393 (Bom), CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia • 173 Taxman 407 (Del), Ambassador Travels vs. • (2005) 1 SOT 142 (Mum), Seamist Properties Ltd. vs. ITO 68

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

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

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. • 177 ITR 393 (Bom), CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia • 173 Taxman 407 (Del), Ambassador Travels vs. • (2005) 1 SOT 142 (Mum), Seamist Properties Ltd. vs. ITO 68

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

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

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. • 177 ITR 393 (Bom), CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia • 173 Taxman 407 (Del), Ambassador Travels vs. • (2005) 1 SOT 142 (Mum), Seamist Properties Ltd. vs. ITO 68

ACIT CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI vs. ADIISH JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2(22)(e)\nof the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.\n4.\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on\nrecord. The assessee is an individual and apart from being a partner of M/s. JP\nEngineers having 50% share thereon, he is also a shareholder in SMW Metal Pvt.\nLtd having

DEEPTTI ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-7 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The first issue concerns additions of Rs.2,08,50,000/- by invoking provisions of Section 2(22)(e

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

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid bunch of 22 appeals relating to above named 16 assessees pertain to quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 arising out of 9 separate impugned appellate orders. The issues involved in all the 22 appeals are arising out of identical set of facts