TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh dt. 14/12/2016. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-2 has erred in law as well as on facts in adding an amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is not in the normal course of the business. Therefore the Assessing Officer treated the advance received by the assessee from the above company as deemed dividend and made addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the grounds that the money so received by the assesse was given to the father of the assessee for various pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pal Singh and from thereto Berkeley Retails Pvt. Ltd. He is also submitted the relevant bank statements during the hearing. 6. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have gone through the facts on record and find that the amounts have been indeed received by Barkley Retails Pvt. Ltd. which can be considered as a trade advance. Thus we find that, the observation of the Ld....