How many judgments cite ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd.?

84 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd. (118 ITD 1), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(22)(e), Section 37, Section 143(3), Section 263.

ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd.

118 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1352 most cited

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

Decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts can be followed by tribunals in the absence of contrary decisions from the jurisdictional High Court. Tribunals should follow decisions of higher judicial authorities.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd · 118 ITD 1 · ITAT Pune · non-jurisdictional High Court · jurisdictional High Court · coordinate bench · hierarchical judicial system · higher judicial authority

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(22)deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)accumulated profits beneficial owner cross objection section 37 prescribed india previous year section 143 section 143(3)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd.

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2259/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2259/Ahd/2016 With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 D.C.I.T., M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Iscon House, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Nr. Citi Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

…essary TDS and have also paid back the said ICD along with interest during F. Y I 2008-09. Appellant's main objection was that in view of the various decisions including special bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Asstt. CIT v/s. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd.[2009] 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB) and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v/s Daisy Packers (P.) Ltd [2013] 40 taxmann.com 480 (Gujarat) 3. Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Impact Containers (P.) Ltd 367 ITR 346 [2014] (Bombay) and other decisions (supra), the addition of deemed dividend cannot be made in the • hands of the company. The view ta…

The Dy. CIT 4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Ryder Trans International (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 720/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…al shareholder of the lender company are required to be established in the present case, the assessee is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender company. Reliance was placed on the judgments as under: (a)ACIT vs Bhoumik Colour Pvt. Ltd 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) (b)CIT vs C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar 83 ITR 170 (SC) (c) Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal 122 ITR 162 (SC) (d) JCIT vs Kunal Organics P Ltd 164 Taxman 169 (Ahd.) 3 PB 119- CIT vs Ankitech P Whether legal fiction created u/s 139 Ltd 11 taxmann 2(22)(e) enlarges definition of 100 (Del.) dividend only, legal fiction is not to be extended further for broad…

M/S Zygo Bonsai Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 591/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra R. Chakraborty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2(22)(e)

…dend in the hands of the assessee company. In support of these contentions, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.462/2019) (Del) b) Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 190 Taxman 144 (Bom) c) Bhoumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (SB) 4. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal & Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT (Civil appeal No.12274 of 2016 dated 4.1.2017). The Ld. D.R. submitted that the deemed dividend can be assessed in the hands of the beneficial shareholder. M/s. Zygo Bonsai Private Limited, Bangalore…

Asst. CIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Everglades Minerals & Reserves Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4625/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…n be taxed in the hands of the shareholder only and since the assessee was not a shareholder in lPL the dividend cannot be taxed in its hands. In this regard reliance was placed upon the special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT versus Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. (118 ITD 1). Hence, learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. 6. Against this order Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that it is evident from the facts above assessee is not a shareholder of the lending company that is AIPL. Hence on the touchstone of the special bench decision of the ITAT in Bhaum…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Petal Motocon Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 483/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 I.T.O, Petal Motocon Pvt. Ltd., Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. 131, M H Mill Compound, Ahmedabad. Planet House, Khokhra Circle, Maninagar East, Ahmedabad-380008. Pan: Aafcp0078F

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…" M/s. Precimetal Cast. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO-ITA 3499/Ahd/2015 (Annecure-“A”) " ACIT Vs. Leela Ship Reculcing Pvt. Ltd. – 1658/Ahd/2012 (Annexure “B”) " CIT Vs. Mahavir Inducto Pvt. Ltd.- Tax Appeal 892of 2016 (Annexure “C”) " ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colors Pvt. Ltd.- 118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB); " CIT Vs. Ankitech (P.) Ltd., 340ITR 14 (Del); In any case, transaction in question took place for “business purpose”. • In any case, the transaction in question took place for the business purposes and hence, the same not fall within the ambit of “loan or advance” as envisaged u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. • Assessee had taken money from PA…

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…does not follow straight from the section as such. So, the question is - is her interpretation legally valid ! To be more specific, has it stood the test of judicial scrutiny ! Let us see. 3.2.7 ………….. In the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 1 (MUM.- ITAT) (Special Bench) ....................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. In the recent judgment DCIT vs. GEBBS Healthcare Solutions (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 333 (Mumbai - Trib.) it was held that ....................................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. In the very recent judgment given by the ACIT vs. Micr…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dhwani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by revenue and cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed

ITA 2232/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…have deducted the necessary TDS and have also paid back the said ICD along with interest. Appellant's main objection was that in view of the various decisions including special bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Asstt. CIT v/s. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd.[2009] 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB) and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v/s Daisy Packers (P.) Ltd [2013] 40 taxmdnn.com 480 (Gujarat), 3. Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. impact Containers (P.) Ltd 367ITR 346 [2014] (Bombay) and other decisions (supra), the addition of deemed dividend cannot be made in the hands of the company. The view take…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…he decision of Hon‟ble non-jurisdictional High Court, in the absence of anything to the contrary by the jurisdictional High Court, we may only refer to the decision of another coordinate bench, in the case of ACIT Vs Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Pune)], which, inert alia, analyses the position as follows: 5. As observed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Tej International (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (69 TTJ 650), in the hierarchical judicial system that we have in India, the wisdom of the court below has to yield to the higher wisdom of the court above and, therefore, once an a…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…absence of anything to the contrary by the jurisdictional High Court, we may only refer to ITA No. 2165/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2007-08 Page 11 of 15 the decision of another coordinate bench, in the case of ACIT Vs Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Pune)], which, inert alia, analyses the position as follows: 5. As observed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Tej International (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (69 TTJ 650), in the hierarchical judicial system that we have in India, the wisdom of the court below has to yield to the higher wisdom of the court above and, therefore, once an a…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…he decision of Hon’ble non-jurisdictional High Court, in the absence of anything to the contrary by the jurisdictional High Court, we may only refer to the decision of another coordinate bench, in the case of ACIT Vs Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Pune)], which, inert alia, analyses the position as follows: 5. As observed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Tej International (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (69 TTJ 650), in the hierarchical judicial system that we have in India, the wisdom of the court below has to yield to the higher wisdom of the court above and, therefore, once an a…

M/S. Microgenesis Techsoft Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 12(1), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No. 1014/Bang/2019 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA

ITA 1015/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shree Balaram Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2

…hese additions are upheld by CIT (A). 4. He submitted that addition of same income in both cases is not justified. He placed reliance on the judgment of the special bench of the tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. As reported in 118 ITD 1. He pointed out that as per this tribunal order, addition can be made in the hands of the shareholder and since Shri Manoj Tharian is shareholder of the lender company. The addition in his hands may be confirmed but the addition in the hands of the company should be deleted. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of CIT (A) 5. I have consid…

Sri Manoj Tharian, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 12(1), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No. 1014/Bang/2019 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA

ITA 1014/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shree Balaram Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Simplex Renewable Resources P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 751/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Dcit-8(2)(1) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 M.K. Road 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.112/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of Ita No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-8(2)(1) बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg M.K. Road Vs. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/C.O.) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Chaudhury Arun Kumar, Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil Lohia, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘Act’], Dividend Includes Any Payment Of Any Sum, By A Company

For Appellant: Shri Anil Lohia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhury Arun Kumar, Ld. DR

Section 2(22)(e)

…not constitute dividend. As per Explanation-3, the term ‘concern’ would include Hindu Undivided family or a firm or an association of persons or a body of individuals or a company. 1.2 The Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT V/s Bhaumik Color (P.) Ltd. [118 ITD 1 19/11/2008], interpreting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e), held that deemed dividend could be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of lender company and not in the hands of a person other than the shareholder. Further the shareholder should both be a registered shareholder as well as beneficial shareholder for the applicab…

Sardar Madan Singh Bharara, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals stand allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…nterest. The AO assessing the case of OSCPL has added this sum as deemed dividend in the hands of OSCPL, which is not a shareholder in the M/s. Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. (GDPL). The Hon'ble IT AT following the decision of M/s. Bhaumik Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd., 118 ITD 1 Mumbai Special Bench and CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) has deleted the additions. The Ld.CIT(A)-17 while deciding the case of M/s. Om Siddi Vinayak Creation Pvt. Ltd. deleted the said addition. The Ld.AO of the assessee stated that Shri Madan Singh Bharara (assessee) is a registered and beneficial shareholder of M/s. Gazeb…

Ifc Universal Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4661/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S. Ifc Universal Ito 8(2)(1) Room No. 477, Aayakar Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11, Adeshwar Arcade, Mumbai-400020. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8524P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Lax (Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses On Payments Of Freight Made To Jet Airways (India)Ltd Rs.7.15.765/- & To Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Rs.50,38,699/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Appreciating The Submissions Tiled By The Appellant, That The Introduction To Proviso To Section 201(I)Is Explanatory/Clarificatory & Therefore Should Apply Retrospectively & Therefore Payments Of Freight Without Tds

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

…position as laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Godavari Devi Saraf ([1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom)] and as analysed by a coordinate 9 A.Y. 2011-12 bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Pune)].” 9. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Coordinate Bench in the case of E-Commerce Magnum Solution Ltd., v. DCIT. (supra), we hold that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective and applicable from 01.04.2005. 10. The decision relied by the Ld. DR in the case of ACIT v.…

Microfinish Valves Private Limited, Hubli vs. Asst.C.I.T., Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1449/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43B

…sessee’s own case in Assessment Year 2012-13 (supra). In its order in ITA No.1706/Bang/2017 dated 16.11.2018, the Co-ordinate Bench, following, inter alia, the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Bhoumik Color Labs (ITA No.5030/M/04, 118 ITD 1 (SB) (Mum)), at paras 11 to 15 thereof, has held as under: IT(IT)A No. 1449/Bang/2015 Page 5 of 12 “11. In the present appeal we are concerned with the second limb of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act, viz., "to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest". The following conditions are required…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No.1774/Kol/2016 A.Y 2006-07 D.C.I.T, Cir-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) I.T.A No.1718/Kol/2016 A.Y 2007-08 A.C.I.T, C.C 4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Ld. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Smt. Shikha Agarwal, Aca, Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shikha Agarwal, ACA, ld.AR

Section 143(3)

…(SB)." 2.2 The appellant has relied on various judicial decisions to claim that the recipient of loan must be a shareholder in the company having advanced the an. The appellant has relied on the following decisions: i) ACIT Vs Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. (2 09) 118 ITD 1 (Mum.)(SB) ii) CIT Vs Ankitech (P) Ltd. & Ors. (201 ) 340 ITR 14 iii)CIT Vs. R Magnetics Pvt. Ltd (ITA 2 1/2012) (2014) 220 Taxman 209 2.3 As the A.O. has not given any finding that the appellant company is a shareholder in the companies having advanced loan, 8 1718/K/16 A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd the decisions listed a…

Microfinish Valves Pvt Ltd, Hubli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1706/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(22)(e)

…ofits, carrying not less than twenty percent of the voting power (d) If the above conditions are satisfied then the payment by the company to the concern will be dividend. 12. The Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Bhaumik Color Labs ITA 5030/M/04, 118 ITD 1 (SB) (Mum), considered the question Whether deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be assessed in the hands of a person other than a shareholder of the lender? The Special Bench 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 a person o…