ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 13. The facts in brief are that the assessee has taken a loan of Rs.2,65,00,000/- from M/s. Multiventure Agro and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The AO noted that M/s. Bay Tree Agro Firms Pvt. Ltd. is a common shareholder on the assessee as well as on the above

NARENDRA M. RUIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmr. Narendra M. Ruia Income Tax Officer-10(3)(1) Plot No. 123, Street No. 17, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marin Lines Vs. Midc, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 093 Pan – Aabpr3674C Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceeding is bad in law and the assessment order passed be cancel. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that, the addition made u/s.2(22)(e) of Rs.1,08,75,412/- which addition be deleted. (b) The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the details and explanation

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the hands of the shareholder of the Assessee-Company and addition was made in the hands of such shareholder as deemed dividend

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the IT Act dated 09.12.2019 assessing total income at Rs,3,46,93,780/- as against returned income of Rs.1,85,690/-,which was requested to be held as a in law as the same was liable to be quashed and cancelled as the assessment order

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

deemed dividend. 6. Whereas on the contrary Ld. AR relied up the detailed submissions filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and the same is reproduced herein below: "The Appellant filed his return of income originally for the aforesaid assessment year 2017-18 on 28.10.2017. The Appellant's case for the assessment year 2017- 18 was selected for scrutiny

ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ANUSHREE V. KHETAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Sing, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4975/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ito-24(1)(2) Smt. Anushree V. Khetan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 78, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aocpk 8810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi

Deemed Dividend" in the hand of the recipient i.e. Ms. Anushree Khetan in AY 2006-07. AO also pointed that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2005-06 appellant had mislead the department by stating that she had only 9% voting power shares in M/s. Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd during FY 2004-05. AO also pointed out that

ADVANTAGE MOTI (INDIA) P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS HARIBHAKTI MOTI INDIA P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.7379/M/2012 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2006-07

deemed dividend to the tune of Rs 65,36,884/- should be taxable in the hands of the assessee company i.e. M/s. Advantage Moti (I) Pvt. Ltd. On perusal of the records, it is found that you have not offered any such income to tax. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income aggregating to Rs.65

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

reassessment proceedings, applied section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the funds 21 M/s Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. acquired by the assessee from SCCPL. The assessee vide letter dated 11/12/2013 explained that the provision of the deem dividend

NARESH JAGDISHRAI GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO(IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of National Travel Services. As per the A.O. the assessee was the beneficial owner of more than 10% of the total voting right/power in Jet Air Private Limited, therefore, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were applicable to the assessee in respect

AYAJ S. DHUMAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ajay S. Dhumal, Ito-26(2)(4), 229/230, Arun Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacpd 7035 Q Appellant Respondent

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assesse the hands of the assessee, but this was not disclosed in the original , but this was not disclosed in the original return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO), having recorded return of income. The Assessing Officer

JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

deemed dividend was not considered/discussed during the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. Further, we are of the considered view that the impugned reassessment

ADITY DALMIYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Aditya Dalmiya Vs Ito-17(1)(1), Mumbai 36, 5Th Floor, Vishnu Mahal D Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aclpd1591Q Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Shri Biren Gabhawala Respondent By Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

reassess the issue of "deemed dividend" other than the issues in respect of which proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were

YOGESH MEHRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C.C.-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

deemed dividend and as on the date of search no assessment or reassessment was pending for the AY 2008-09 that

LIBRA TECHCON LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2009-10

deemed dividend’ is in the hands of such shareholder and certainly not the payer entity. Therefore, on this count also, we find no justification for the Revenue for invoking Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the present assessee qua the impugned payment. The action of Assessing Officer is not liable to be upheld. 10. Since

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

deemed dividend’ under section 2(22)(e) of the Act - Rs.14,26,974/-; and, (iii) estimated addition on low household withdrawals – Rs.6.00 lacs. Notably, the CIT(A) has deleted all the additions so made by the Assessing Officer, which is being challenged in appeal by the Revenue as per above stated Grounds of appeal. Be that as it may, plea

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

deemed dividend’ under section 2(22)(e) of the Act - Rs.14,26,974/-; and, (iii) estimated addition on low household withdrawals – Rs.6.00 lacs. Notably, the CIT(A) has deleted all the additions so made by the Assessing Officer, which is being challenged in appeal by the Revenue as per above stated Grounds of appeal. Be that as it may, plea

MR. AKBAR ABDULALI, PROP. FAIZ AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 17(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailakbar Humayun Abdulali, Prop. Faize & Company, Unit No.5, Alahi Baug, 75, Abdul Rehman Stree, ……………. Appellant Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400003 Pan: Aabps6866F

reassessment proceedings from the perusal of the balancesheet, it was observed that the assessee has received loans from the company in which it has a substantial shareholding. In order to verify the applicability of the deemed dividend