ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd.

118 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1357 most cited

What is ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd. authority for?

A loan or advance is treated as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) only when the recipient (lendee) is a shareholder of the lending company. The provision does not apply if the lendee is not a direct shareholder, even in cases involving fellow subsidiaries.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. · ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd. · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loan to shareholder · lendee · lender company · beneficial owner · accumulated profits · ITAT Special Bench · 118 ITD 1

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 37Section 143(3)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)accumulated profitsbeneficial ownercross objectionsection 37prescribedindiaprevious yearsection 143section 143(3)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd.

SAHARA INDIA LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 1243/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

…e lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder to the specified extent in light of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 3 | P a g e ITA No.898/Lkw/2005, ITA Nos.45, 46, 78 & 127/Lkw/2006 &1243/Del/2009 C.O. Nos.36, 37, 39 & 40/Lkw/2006 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) and CIT Vs Raj Kumar Singh & Co. (2007) 295 ITR 5 (Ald). We thus delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 5 crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehementl…

ACIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA LTD.,, LUCKNOW

ITA 78/LKW/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

…e lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder to the specified extent in light of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 3 | P a g e ITA No.898/Lkw/2005, ITA Nos.45, 46, 78 & 127/Lkw/2006 &1243/Del/2009 C.O. Nos.36, 37, 39 & 40/Lkw/2006 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) and CIT Vs Raj Kumar Singh & Co. (2007) 295 ITR 5 (Ald). We thus delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 5 crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehementl…

ACIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA LTD.,, LUCKNOW

ITA 46/LKW/2006[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

…e lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder to the specified extent in light of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 3 | P a g e ITA No.898/Lkw/2005, ITA Nos.45, 46, 78 & 127/Lkw/2006 &1243/Del/2009 C.O. Nos.36, 37, 39 & 40/Lkw/2006 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) and CIT Vs Raj Kumar Singh & Co. (2007) 295 ITR 5 (Ald). We thus delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 5 crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehementl…

ACIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA LTD.,, LUCKNOW

ITA 45/LKW/2006[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

…e lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder to the specified extent in light of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 3 | P a g e ITA No.898/Lkw/2005, ITA Nos.45, 46, 78 & 127/Lkw/2006 &1243/Del/2009 C.O. Nos.36, 37, 39 & 40/Lkw/2006 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) and CIT Vs Raj Kumar Singh & Co. (2007) 295 ITR 5 (Ald). We thus delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 5 crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehementl…

ACIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA LTD.,, LUCKNOW

ITA 127/LKW/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

…e lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder to the specified extent in light of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 3 | P a g e ITA No.898/Lkw/2005, ITA Nos.45, 46, 78 & 127/Lkw/2006 &1243/Del/2009 C.O. Nos.36, 37, 39 & 40/Lkw/2006 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) and CIT Vs Raj Kumar Singh & Co. (2007) 295 ITR 5 (Ald). We thus delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 5 crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehementl…

SAHARA INDIA LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, LUCKNOW

ITA 898/LKW/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

…e lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder to the specified extent in light of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 3 | P a g e ITA No.898/Lkw/2005, ITA Nos.45, 46, 78 & 127/Lkw/2006 &1243/Del/2009 C.O. Nos.36, 37, 39 & 40/Lkw/2006 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) and CIT Vs Raj Kumar Singh & Co. (2007) 295 ITR 5 (Ald). We thus delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 5 crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehementl…

MOHAN EXPORT (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-17(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1716/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 1716/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Mohan Export (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 8-9, Mohan House, Zamrudpur Circle-17(2), Community Centre, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACM4168J Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 15.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against…

M/S. LINDE INDIA LTD(FORMERLY BOC INDIA LTD) ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, AR & Shri Alpesh Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…s. Linde India Ltd. (M/s. LIL) being fellow subsidiary of the holding company M/s. Linde AG (Germany) was deemed dividend. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as per the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mum. SB), deemed dividend was liable to be taxed only when the lendee is the shareholder of the lender company. It was a submission that in the present case the assessee is not a shareholder of M/s. LEIPL. It was thus submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. (supra), the…

APEEJAY SURRENDRE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 988/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ction has to be carried to its logical conclusion and must be within the framework for the purpose for which it is created. 5.2. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Special Bench, Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumick Colour Pvt. ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 1 (Mum)(SB) wherein it was held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of the person, other than a shareholder. Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 340 ITR 14 (Del.) wherein…

APEEJAY SURRENDRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ction has to be carried to its logical conclusion and must be within the framework for the purpose for which it is created. 5.2. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Special Bench, Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumick Colour Pvt. ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 1 (Mum)(SB) wherein it was held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of the person, other than a shareholder. Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 340 ITR 14 (Del.) wherein…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 vs. M/S WIG INVESTMENT

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…red view that the payments made by the company partners are not taxable in the hands of the appellant firm; however, the same is chargeable to tax in the hands of the shareholders. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB), CIT Vs. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar (1977) 109 ITR 508 (Mad) and Ankitech P. Ltd, 340 ITR 14 (Del). Accordingly, the deemed dividend of Rs.21,08,38,530/- is hereby deleted. Consequential relief shall be given by the AO. The AO may consider taking remedial action as per law in assessing the deemed dividend of Rs.21,08,38,530/- in rele…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…for all the impugned assessment years, further took us through the relevant provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the three limbs provided therein and then stated that the Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [118 ITD 1 (MUM)], has been held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of the person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of any other person. Based on this ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Special 12 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Ko…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…for all the impugned assessment years, further took us through the relevant provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the three limbs provided therein and then stated that the Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [118 ITD 1 (MUM)], has been held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of the person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of any other person. Based on this ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Special 12 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Ko…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…for all the impugned assessment years, further took us through the relevant provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the three limbs provided therein and then stated that the Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [118 ITD 1 (MUM)], has been held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of the person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of any other person. Based on this ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Special 12 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Ko…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…for all the impugned assessment years, further took us through the relevant provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the three limbs provided therein and then stated that the Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [118 ITD 1 (MUM)], has been held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of the person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of any other person. Based on this ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Special 12 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Ko…

GLOBAL BUSINESS CONEXXTIONS PVT.LTD.,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 720/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…](SC) reported in 2018 93 taxmann.com 502 (SC) - CIT Vs Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd (190 Taxman 194) (Bom. HC) - CIT Vs Ankitech Pvt Ltd (11 Taxmann.com 100) (Delhi HC) - CIT Vs Hotel Hilltop (ITA No. 25 of 2005) (Rajasthan HC) - CIT Vs Bhaumik Colors Pvt Ltd (118 ITD 1) (Mumbai ITAT SB) Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that 8. the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act would be attracted even in a case where the lender and the borrower have a common shareholder. In this regard, reliance was placed by the Learned Departmental Representative on Circular No. 495 dated 22/09/1987 issu…

DHYAN SWAMIBAPA TRUST,SENJALDHAM, TEHSIL : SAVARKUNDLA, DIST: AMRELI vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Ito Senjaldham, Vs. Ward-1(Exemption), Tehsil Saavarkundala Rajkot. Dist. Amreli-364515 C/O. Sanghavi & Company, Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaatd1598E

For Appellant: Shri G.R Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

…not have any good reason to deviate from the same. As to whether the views expressed by a non jurisdictional High Court are binding are on not, we find guidance from a coordinate bench decision in the case of ACIT Vs Aurnagabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Pune)] which, inter alia, observes as follows: 3. Learned Departmental Representative, however, contends that decision of a non- jurisdictional High Court is not a binding precedent for us. Our attention is invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (206 ITR 727) wherein Their Lords…

SANJAY BADANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 982/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sanjay Badani Acit – 10(3) Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, Now Known As 15(2)(1), D. S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 014

For Appellant: Shri Margav ShuklaFor Respondent: 25.08.2022
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23(1)Section 250

…was to be taxed in the hands of the share holders by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [190 Taxmann 144 (Bom)] and the co-ordinate bench in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)]. 6. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us on this ground. 7. The ld. Authorized Representative (‘ld. AR’ for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee proposed to file additional evidence in support of his claim pertaining to the additions made by the ld. A.O. The ld. AR prayed that the assessee may be giv…

SHRI PLOT SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN TAPGACHCHHA SANGH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…e issue on hand of the jurisdictional High Court. Thus, over understanding ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is applicable on us in view of the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd., reported in 118 ITD 1 wherein it was held as under: “7. It is also important to bear in mind that the question requiring adjudication by Their Lordship was whether or not decision of one of the High Courts was binding on the other High Courts. This will be clear from following observations made by Their Lordships in the beginning of the judgment : "On a careful consider…

SHRI PLOT SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN TAPGACHCHHA SANGH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/RJT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…e issue on hand of the jurisdictional High Court. Thus, over understanding ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is applicable on us in view of the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd., reported in 118 ITD 1 wherein it was held as under: “7. It is also important to bear in mind that the question requiring adjudication by Their Lordship was whether or not decision of one of the High Courts was binding on the other High Courts. This will be clear from following observations made by Their Lordships in the beginning of the judgment : "On a careful consider…

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5