Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1 v. Aakar Design Consultants Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-0723-38]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0723-38 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1 |
| Respondent Name | Aakar Design Consultants Pvt. Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 23/07/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2012-13 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | deemed dividend • advance |
| Bot Summary: | For the reason stated in the application, the delay of 132 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of. The Revenue is an appeal against an order dated 4 th May, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3712/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The point urged by the Revenue is that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the beneficiary of the advance was itself not a shareholder of the company in question. In coming ITA 201/2019 Page 1 of 2 to that conlusion, the ITAT has followed the decision of this Court in CIT v. Ankitech Private Limited 340 ITR 14 which has been approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Madhur Housing and Development Corporation 4. Learned counsel for Revenue submits that in National Travel Services vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII 3 SCC 95 a two Judge bench of the Supreme Court has doubted the correctness of the view expressed by this Court in CIT v. Ankitech Private Limited which has been approved by Supreme Court in Madhur Housing and has accordingly referred the matter to a larger bench of the Supreme Court. The fact further remains that as of date the decision of this Court in CIT v. Ankitech Private Limited approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Madhur Housing holds the field. The Court is unable to find any error committed by the ITAT in following the aforementioned decisions and deciding the issue in favour of the Assessee. |