TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals without considering all the grounds of appeal on merits and documents relied upon in support of the claim that the business advances made by the Company cannot be held to be deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that there is a deemed dividend merely based on the accumulated profits, is arbitrary unreasonable and perverse? 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee, at material point of time was a Director with M/s. DTDC Ltd. On March 28, 1995, M/s. DTDC gave Rs.6.60 Lakhs to the assessee and five other Directors, who were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee, the CIT(A), vide order dated 30.01.2004, dismissed the appeal. On further appeal, the ITAT vide order dated 24.02.2005 set-aside the Order passed under Section 147 of the IT Act. The said order was challenged by the Revenue in ITA No.2781/2005 and connected cases (CIT and another Vs. Rinku Chakravarthy). This Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the ITAT for re-consideration in accordance with law. After re-consideration, by the impugned order, the ITAT has dismissed assessee's appeal. 5. Smt. Vani, assailing the impugned order submitted that it is not in dispute that Rs.6.60 Lakhs was paid by M/s. DTDC towards purchase of the property. In view of the changed circumstances, M/s. DTDC thought it appropriate to tre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnexure-A) under Section 158BC of the Act, the Assessing Officer has recorded that the Directors had entered into an agreement with M/s. DTDC for sale of ground floor portion to be constructed on the land in question. He has further recorded that M/s. DTDC has paid an advance of Rs.6.60 Lakhs to each of the Directors totalling to Rs.39.60 Lakhs with an agreement that the amount paid would be adjusted towards sale consideration of the property to be transferred to the Company as and when the sale deed were executed. It is also recorded that the building was constructed through a Company named M/s. Surya Homes. Parties are not at variance with regard to sale of ground floor to M/s. DTDC for a sale consideration of Rs.8,87,500/-. Thus, a porti....