AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. end in the hands of the assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee reiterated the submissions, but Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee reiterated the submissions Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee reiterated the submissions Amar Vithaldas Gandhi the learned CIT(A) likewise found no merit in the plea

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

deemed dividend in the hands of assessee. Ledger account of the subsidiaries as well as of assessee is clearly shows that all transaction which recorded under the same ledger which was grouped as part of the current liabilities in the books of the in the books of the assessee and as part of the current assets/trade receivables in the books

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

deemed dividend in the hands of assessee. Ledger account of the subsidiaries as well as of assessee is clearly shows that all transaction which recorded under the same ledger which was grouped as part of the current liabilities in the books of the in the books of the assessee and as part of the current assets/trade receivables in the books

ARUNKUMAR JAYANTILAL MUCHHALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

TDS on salary of\n₹.2,50,000/- on 31.03.2012.\n11. Broadly speaking, he submitted that to the extent of salary\nwithdrawn by the assessee may be excluded from the deemed dividend

SANJEEV RAJENDRA PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit, The Assistant Director Of Top Floor Madhav Vilas, 8 Income Tax (Cpc), Setalwad Road, Off Neapean Vs. Post Bag No.2, Electronic Sea Road, Cumballa Hill, S.O., City Post Office, Mumbai-400026. Bangalore-560500. Pan No. Agypp 4026 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Milin Dattani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 18/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

dividend credit of Rs. 3,22,290/- from 32,229 shares of Tata Steel Lt from 32,229 shares of Tata Steel Ltd as well the as well the appellant has not appellant has not submitted any proof of production of form submitted any proof of production of form 16A before the AO evidencing deduction of TDS. 16A before

SANJEEV RAJENDRA PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC) , MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit, The Assistant Director Of Top Floor Madhav Vilas, 8 Income Tax (Cpc), Setalwad Road, Off Neapean Vs. Post Bag No.2, Electronic Sea Road, Cumballa Hill, S.O., City Post Office, Mumbai-400026. Bangalore-560500. Pan No. Agypp 4026 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Milin Dattani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 18/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

dividend credit of Rs. 3,22,290/- from 32,229 shares of Tata Steel Lt from 32,229 shares of Tata Steel Ltd as well the as well the appellant has not appellant has not submitted any proof of production of form submitted any proof of production of form 16A before the AO evidencing deduction of TDS. 16A before

BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bkt House, C Wing, 15 Th Floor, Cit Cir Rg 6(1) Trade World, Kamal Mills Vs. Mumbai Compund, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb3333J Assessee By .. Shri Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

deemed dividend under section 2(22) (e) of the Act. We find that in view of the amended provisions of Companies Act 1956, the assessee being a Public Ltd. Company has taken loan from a subsidiary which is also a public Ltd. Company, by virtue of the amended provisions and therefore, the assessee falls within the provisions of section

M/S. ORION TRAVELS PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Manoj Kumar Agarwal () Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Cc-31 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan No. Aaaco1591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel

dividend. In the absence of any specific deeming provisions in the UTI Act units as shares, it was held that it would be erroneous to extend the provisions of Section 32(3) of the Act for the purpose of holding the units as share. Accordingly, it was held that buying and selling of units by assessee cold

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. OMEGA SHIPPING AGENCIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Omega Shipping Agencies Income Tax -8(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd., 610, A-Wig, Kohinoor R. No.216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, City Mall, Kirol Road, Kurla (W), M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 070 Pan: Aaaco 3745 R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta, Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay R. Singh, Ar Date Of Hearing 15-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-06-2016

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground no.1 to 3 as raised by the revenue is dismissed.”. When, these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. DR, he fairly conceded the position. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that in this

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

deemed dividend. 5.2.Now,we would deal with the issue of treating the assessee as A-I-D for not deducting tax at source.Once it has been decided that the profit arising out of buyback would be taxed as capital 9 6468/13 & 6269/13-Kornferry gains the next step is to determine as to whether the capital gains are taxable in the hands

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI

deemed dividend. 5.2.Now,we would deal with the issue of treating the assessee as A-I-D for not deducting tax at source.Once it has been decided that the profit arising out of buyback would be taxed as capital gains the next step is to determine as to whether the capital gains are taxable in the hands of parent company

SUMIT MOHANSINGH GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT -25(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharysumit Mohansingh Vs. Assistant Commissioner Gandhi, 44/43, Movie Of Income Tax-25(1) Tower, Oshiwara Near Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Yamuna Nagar, Andheri Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To (W) Mumbai – 400053 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Atzps3217K Appellant .. Respondent

deemed dividend. There was a delay in filing this appeal by 103 days and the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. In the affidavit assessee explained that he received the order of CIT(A) on 31.08.2020 and due to Covid pandemic Government of India had extended due date to file appeal before

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and other similar disallowance / additions on the basis of regular books of account and return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of I.T. Act, 1961. There is no iota of discussion of any seized / incriminating materials. Even during remand proceedings, the AO has not brought on record any incriminating material

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and other similar disallowance / additions on the basis of regular books of account and return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of I.T. Act, 1961. There is no iota of discussion of any seized / incriminating materials. Even during remand proceedings, the AO has not brought on record any incriminating material

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

TDS deducted was claimed as refund u/s 237 of the Act in its ITR for deducted was claimed as refund u/s 237 of the Act in its ITR for deducted was claimed as refund u/s 237 of the Act in its ITR for Rs.3,65,25,000/ Rs.3,65,25,000/-. The AO further stated in assessment order that

INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MR.KHALID MUSTAFA VASAIWALA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

deemed dividend under section 2(22(e) of the Act. It was also brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the other small advances aggregating to Rs.7,66,483/- were partly towards TDS

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHAPURA HABITATS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito 2(1)(1), M/S. Ashapura Habitats P. Ltd., 1St Floor, Veetrag Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Room No.575, 5Th Floor, 46, C.P. Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaeca 7475L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2016 O R D E R

deemed dividend. (6)(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Bhaumil Colours Pvt. Ltd. ignoring the fact that further appeal U/s260A in that case was not filed only

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

TDS. d. Large Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss a/c. e. Large any other deduction claimed in sch. BP Large any other deduction claimed in sch. BP Large any other deduction claimed in sch. BP creating a loss without any income in Profit & creating a loss without any income in Profit