28 ST 383 (Mum Trib) Bombay Oil Industreis Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

167 ITD 100Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16927 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 10(2A)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144A

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profits deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)section 2(22)section 14a transfer prescribed company person india business interest

Judgments citing 28 ST 383 (Mum Trib) Bombay Oil Industreis Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 446/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…s: 14 1. CIT v. Gayatri Chakraborty [(2018) 407 ITR 730 (Cal)] 2. CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada [367 ITR 78 (P&H)) 3. Gadgil Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 1455/PUNE/2017] 4. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [168 ITD 649 (Del)] 5. Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT [167 ITD 100 (Mum)] Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT [338 ITR 538 (Cal)/[ratio applicablel 6. 20. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 21. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.…

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5826/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Dcit, Circle 27(1), Vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi Block-5, Gripwel House, C-6 & C-7, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (Pan: Aaacu0454D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyen Sethi, Advocate Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 04.06.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…them. Therefore, this can never be considered as loan transaction. In this regard, he relied on the case laws page 48 of the paper book in which ITAT, Mumbai Bench decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Ravindra R Fotedar vs. ACIT 167 ITD 100 (Mumbai). 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that GFPL is the wholly owned subsidiary company of the assessee and the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has taken certain loan from them and considering the fact that it is a wholly owned subsidiary, he treated the transaction as deemed dividen…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2204/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsaamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Central Circle – 19 B-67, Sarita Vihar, B, New Delhi New Delhi-110 076 Pan No. Aajcs 4952 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Srhi M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dye & Printing Works reported in 318 ITR 476 (Del), Bombay Oil Industry vs. DCIT reported in 28 SOT 383 (Mumbai), Ravindra R. Fotedar vs. ACIT reported in 167 ITD 100 (Mumbai) & Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3618/Del/2014 dated 12.01.2010. In support of his contentions that the transactions between the assessee and Saga Developers P. Ltd. was in the nature of current account, he pointed to copy of ledger account of Saga Developers P. Ltd. as appearing in the books of assessee, which is placed at Page 20 o…

Hari Kumar Ruliram Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1941/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hari Kumar Ruliram Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1)(5), 110 Sterling Chambers, Poona Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Masjit Bunder (East), Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400-009. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaups 1542 F Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. M. Subramanian, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. M. Subramanian, AR

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 9

…ion, the Ld. Counsel relied on following decisions i. CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H) CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H) ii. CIT v. Gayatri Chakraborty 407 ITR 730 (Cal) CIT v. Gayatri Chakraborty 407 ITR 730 (Cal) iii. Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT 167 ITD 100 Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT 167 ITD 100 6.2 Further, the Ld. Counsel also submitted that the company Further, the Ld. Counsel also submitted that the company Further, the Ld. Counsel also submitted that the company obtained a loan of ₹ ₹4.80 crores from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 4.80 crores from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. towards which the assessee…

Wep Peripherals Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…de the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act as held in the following cases: Wep Peripherals Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 18 • 28 ST 383 (Mum Trib) Bombay Oil Industreis Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax • 367 ITR 78 (P&H) CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada • 167 ITD 100 (Mum Trib) Ravindra R. Fotedar Vs. ACIT • IT Appeal Nos.958 & 959 of 2015 dated 21.12.2015 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Schutz Dishman Biotech (P) Ltd. (Guj)” 10.6 Further, in the case of Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), wherein it was held as under: “In the case of Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., & Others…