V.P. Abdul Kareem vs. Income Tax Officer
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The case involves an appeal by V.P. Abdul Kareem against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 09.06.2022 for Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12. The assessee raised an issue regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to Rs. 31,81,328/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the District Court, Kozhikode, had ruled that the assessee was neither a shareholder nor a Director in the company, M/s. Golsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and thus, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act could not be applied. The learned A.R. also pointed out that the learned CIT(A) did not consider the facts that emerged after the assessment order. The learned Sr. DR did not object to setting aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.…
Decision in favour of
Assessee
Legal Issues
- 1. The assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 31,81,328/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Assessee.
Similar Judgements
Life Span Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer
Cochin benchSahara India Limited v. ACIT, Central Circle-I, Lucknow
Delhi Bench benchAY 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2003-04Partly AllowedTAJMEET KAUR VS. ITO, WARD 29(7) DELHI
DELHI BENCH benchAY 2012-13AllowedArunkumar Jayantilal Muchhla vs DCIT
Mumbai Bench benchAY 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13AllowedPurnendu Roy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2), Kolkata
Kolkata benchAtul Bansal vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16 & ACIT, Central Circle 16 vs. Atul Bansal
Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14Partly Allowed