GIRISH B. CHAUDHARI, L/O. OF LATE SHRI BHAGWAT N CHAUDHARI,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ssa)A No.80/Pun/2017 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Smt. Mahesh Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar (Central - 1) Vs. Yawat Road, Bhusawal Nashik Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Adkpc7175P Appellant Respondent Shri Girish Bhagwat Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer (Lh Of Late Bhagwat N . Chaudhary) (Central - 1) 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar Vs. Nashik Yawat Road, Bhusawal Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Aalpc0512G Appellant Respondent

Section 229C itself stands rebutted since the learned Assessing Officer had made the impugned addition based on a “dumb” document which does not reveal any actual payment at all with dates as well as the assets details involving the taxpayer. We accordingly find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition

M/S. M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

section 2(22)(e). Therefore, ground of appeal no. 1 is dismissed.‖ 6. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,30,66,244/- as deemed dividend

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHAUDHARY CARS PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had engaged M/s. B.N.C. Power Projects Ltd. for construction of showrooms and sheds etc. for its Toyota Cars dealership. The amount of Rs.3,68,27,750/- was the amount payable/paid by the assessee to M/s. B.N.C. Power Projects Ltd. for construction contract. The assessee

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

dividends, remuneration from firms, share of profits from firms and interest on capital from firms. He has also earned remuneration for acting as Director in some companies. None of these sources could generate any legitimate cash. However, as per balance sheet dated 31/03/2003, the assessee had cash in hand for Rs. 72,83,064/- and the said cash in hand

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

dividends, remuneration from firms, share of profits from firms and interest on capital from firms. He has also earned remuneration for acting as Director in some companies. None of these sources could generate any legitimate cash. However, as per balance sheet dated 31/03/2003, the assessee had cash in hand for Rs. 72,83,064/- and the said cash in hand

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

dividends, remuneration from firms, share of profits from firms and interest on capital from firms. He has also earned remuneration for acting as Director in some companies. None of these sources could generate any legitimate cash. However, as per balance sheet dated 31/03/2003, the assessee had cash in hand for Rs. 72,83,064/- and the said cash in hand

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

dividends, remuneration from firms, share of profits from firms and interest on capital from firms. He has also earned remuneration for acting as Director in some companies. None of these sources could generate any legitimate cash. However, as per balance sheet dated 31/03/2003, the assessee had cash in hand for Rs. 72,83,064/- and the said cash in hand

LALITKUMAR KESARIMAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act” and “addition of Rs.25,68,322/-” which we would adjudicate separately in this order. 3. These cases were heard together. Since facts and issues being common, these cases are being disposed of vide this consolidated order. We would first adjudicate whether the assessees are eligible for deduction u/s.54F

KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act” and “addition of Rs.25,68,322/-” which we would adjudicate separately in this order. 3. These cases were heard together. Since facts and issues being common, these cases are being disposed of vide this consolidated order. We would first adjudicate whether the assessees are eligible for deduction u/s.54F

PRANAY LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act” and “addition of Rs.25,68,322/-” which we would adjudicate separately in this order. 3. These cases were heard together. Since facts and issues being common, these cases are being disposed of vide this consolidated order. We would first adjudicate whether the assessees are eligible for deduction u/s.54F

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

dividend income and allowability of capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY GAURI PLASTICULTURE PVT. LTD.,),JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

dividend in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 16-03-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee reiterating his stand submitted that the amount received by assessee from ECP Housing (India) Pvt. Ltd. is in the nature of „Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD)‟ and not loan or advance. The Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE vs. ANILKUMAR POOLCHAND SANGHVI, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68,87,160/- inter alia making addition on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act vide its order dated 29-02-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said assessment order before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held the AO is not justified in adding the amount of Rs.3

AMIT KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

dividend u/s.2(2)(e) of the I.T. Act 1961 from M/s. Apeksha Impex Pvt. Ltd. 3. Addition of Rs.1,00,000.00 on account of household expenses.” 2.1 Whereas Column No.10 provides the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and the same read as under : ‘1. The learned C.I.T. [A] has erred in confirming the addition

KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI, L/H OF LAT KANHAIYALAL V. GIDWANI,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

dividend u/s.2(2)(e) of the I.T. Act 1961 from M/s. Apeksha Impex Pvt. Ltd. 3. Addition of Rs.1,00,000.00 on account of household expenses.” 2.1 Whereas Column No.10 provides the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and the same read as under : ‘1. The learned C.I.T. [A] has erred in confirming the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

dividends or profits or for remittance outside India as profits or for the creation of any asset outside India; (b) the particulars, as may be specified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in this behalf, under clause (b) of sub-section (1B) of section 10A have been furnished by the assessee in respect of machinery or plant along with

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

68, involving proceeding u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the I.T.ACT, 1961 ; in short "the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. ―1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions