2015 (10) TMI 1608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi, are bad in law and void ab initio. ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,73,262 as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. iii. That both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi, misread the directions given by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in their order dated April 6, 2010 in I. T. A. No. 3556/DEL/09 for making the fresh assessment and resultantly treating the sum of Rs. 1,73,262 as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act all over again. iv. That both the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....romoters P. Ltd. respectively. The appellant reflected these transactions in its balance-sheet as loan received during the year. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that these are covered by the scope of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of accumulated profits of Rs. 84,993 and Rs. 1,73,261 respectively. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the addition of Rs. 1,73,261, however, deleted the addition of Rs. 84,993. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, who vide order dated April 6, 2010 in I. T. A. No. 3556/Del/2009 set aside the issue of addition of Rs. 1,73,262 under section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the file of the Ass....