BIGFLEX ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3237/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 August 2024AY 2020-211 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that dividend income referred to in Section 115-O is exempt in the hands of the shareholder under Section 10(34). The non-payment of dividend distribution tax by the payer does not disentitle the recipient to the exemption. Consequently, such exempt dividend cannot be included in book profit for MAT purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee company claimed dividend income of Rs. 40,30,507/- as exempt under Section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) treating this dividend as taxable and also for calculating book profit under Section 115JB, leading to a demand. The CIT(A) confirmed this action.

What were the issues?

Whether dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34) even if the dividend distribution tax was not paid by the company, and whether such exempt dividend should be included in book profit for MAT calculation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(34),Section 115JB,Section 115-O,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, Ld. DR
Hearing: 14/08/2024Pronounced: 19/08/2024

PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) Delhi dated 11.06.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition made by the CPC.

2 Bigflex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,

2.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in passing order without providing effective opportunity of hearing leading to violation of principles of natural justice. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the ac

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 10(34)

All 731 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(34) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →