COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S S PRABHAKAR KAMATH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court followed its previous judgment in a similar case (ITA No.488/2013) which held that dividend should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder, not the firm. Consequently, the ITAT order setting aside the Section 263 proceeding was upheld.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that set aside a proceeding initiated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The core issue was whether deemed dividend should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder or the firm.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the correct situs for taxing deemed dividend, specifically whether it should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder or the firm.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014 PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
ITA NO.356 OF 2012 BETWEEN
1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE
2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri.K V ARAVIND- ADV.)
AND
M/S NAMDHARI SEEDS NO.119, 9TH MAIN ROAD, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT
(By M/s. A SHANKAR & M LAVA- ADVS.)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21/05/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.384/BANG/2011, FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.384/BANG/2011 DATED 21/05/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has set aside the order passed in a proceeding initiated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The question involved is, whether deemed dividend is to be taxed at the hands of the shareholder or the firm? 2. In the assessee’s case, in ITA No.488/2013 dated 30.4.2014 it is held that the dividend should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder and not the firm. In view of the said judgment, the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been
rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026