DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-53, MUMBAI vs. SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the property's value as per the registered valuer's report of Rs. 28.68 Crores. The difference between this value and the sale consideration was rightly held to be taxable as deemed dividend.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Samson Maritime Ltd., transferred an office property to its subsidiary, Underwater Services Company Ltd. (USCL), for Rs. 30 Crores. The stamp duty value was Rs. 15.70 Crores. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the difference as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) reduced the addition by accepting a valuation report of Rs. 28.68 Crores.
What were the issues?
Whether the difference between the sale consideration of a property transferred to a subsidiary and its market value, as determined by a valuer, constitutes deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tata Sons Ltd. v. CIT29 citing158 Taxmann.com 601 · 1950
- Shipping Corporation of India v. Addl. CIT13 citing164 Taxmann.com 391 · 2024 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘G‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & MS PADMAVATHY S
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue against separate order of even date i.e. 24/04/2023 passed by CIT(A)-53, Mumbai for
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 2(22)(d)
- Legrand Netherlands B.V., Netherlands vs ACIT (It) Circle 3(1)(2), MumbaiITA 1882/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Seaview Developers Pvt Ltd, DelhiITA 2719/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Seaview Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs The Deputy Comissioner of Income-Tax Circle…ITA 2621/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Navroze Shiamak Marshall (Legal Heir of… vs Income Tax Officer 19(2)(2), MumbaiITA 5092/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: Disposed25 May 2026AY 2008-09
- M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd… vs A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), NagpurITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed15 May 2025AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026