MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Deemed. Dividend. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Deemed. Dividend. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Deemed Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\ndebit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Deemed Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\ndebit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

RAVINDER RAO TAKKALLAPELLY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed dividend by attributing accumulated profits of Rs.55,37,703 to the shareholder's shareholding percentage was done arbitrarily without substantiating the link between the loan and the distribution of profits. And without looking in to the facts of profits, arbitrarily profits was arrived as Rs.55,37,703. And further there is clear arithmetical error in calculation. The AO Considered

INDUKURI SUNDARI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). However, while according his approval in terms with section 153D, Addl. CIT, who is range head directed Assessing Officer not to make addition u/s 2(22)(e). The reasoning of the Addl. CIT is, advance created in the name of assessee was only through book entry and no payment was made and secondly, there

INDUKURI SYAM PRASAD REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). However, while according his approval in terms with section 153D, Addl. CIT, who is range head directed Assessing Officer not to make addition u/s 2(22)(e). The reasoning of the Addl. CIT is, advance created in the name of assessee was only through book entry and no payment was made and secondly, there

NARESH KUMAR SEKHER, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2.1 Accordingly, the case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 01/11/2013, against which, the assessee filed his return of income on 03/12/2013. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 364 & 365/Hyd/2017 Naresh Kumar Sekhar and another, Hyd. Accordingly, the AO issued other statutory notices to the assessee. 2.2 During

KIRAN DWARAKANATH SEKHAR, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2.1 Accordingly, the case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 01/11/2013, against which, the assessee filed his return of income on 03/12/2013. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 364 & 365/Hyd/2017 Naresh Kumar Sekhar and another, Hyd. Accordingly, the AO issued other statutory notices to the assessee. 2.2 During

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs.9,00,010/- assessed the income in the name of the assessee, viz., Shri Rajasekhar Chelikani at the same amount. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee, in the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), had, inter alia, claimed that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRLCE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

RAMA DEVI TUMMALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed dividend. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the payments were made for legitimate business expenses of the company, not as loans or advances. 4. The PCIT's findings that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are arbitrary, perverse, and based on mere conjectures and surmises. The original assessment was completed after

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

deemed dividend u/s 6 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961 will attracts. Therefore, this aspect needs thorough examination. viii) Further it is noticed from the tax audit report that certain discrepancies pointed out in para no.5(a), to (i) of the Auditor’s report, Para Nos (iii)(a) & (b) and ix(a) of annexure to Auditor’s report

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. After considering 29 B. Ramalinga Raju the assessee’s submissions, the CIT(C) passed an order u/s 263 on 08.03.2012, setting aside the reassessment order and directing an examination of the Rs. 397 crore ADS proceeds and the Rs. 1122.00 crore opening balance. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2012 and served

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. After considering 29 B. Ramalinga Raju the assessee’s submissions, the CIT(C) passed an order u/s 263 on 08.03.2012, setting aside the reassessment order and directing an examination of the Rs. 397 crore ADS proceeds and the Rs. 1122.00 crore opening balance. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2012 and served