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.

Upl Environmental Engineers Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Range-4, Baroda

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

ITA 2191/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…s not alter the 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 bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Pune)]. 10. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited verification on the aspect as to whether recipient of payment has included the same in his computation of business income offered to tax, and, if found to be so,…

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 423/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

…sessee in M/s. Mega Resources Ltd and controversy surrounding the second limb, which is the subject matter of the SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be of no relevance to the present case. 9. In the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Color Labs Pvt.Ltd., 118 ITD 1 (SB) (Mumbai), the Special Bench Mumbai had to deal with the following question: “Whether the words "such shareholder" occurring in section 2(22)(e ) refer to a shareholder who is both the ‘registered’ shareholder and the beneficial shareholder ?” It was held by the Special Bench as follows: “In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cas…

Jay Mataji Construction, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3111/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2006-07

Section 40

…ITA No.3111/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDBAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and S.S. Godara JM] Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jay Mataji Construction, ....…..….….....Appellant Plot No.1515/1, Sector-3D, Gandhinagar – 382 003. [PAN: AAFFJ 2793 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Gandhinagar. ....................Respondent Appearances by: None for the appellant James Kurian for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 23.05.2017 Date of pronouncing the order : 24.05.2017 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar AM: This appeal is directed against the or…

Business Strategy Group, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4080/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-4080/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Business Strategy Group vs ACIT B-9, Basement, Near Gyan Bharti School, Circle 23(1) Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. AAAFB5289N Assessee by Sh. Sandeep Singla, CA Revenue by Sh. S.K. Jain, DR Date of Hearing 30.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2017 ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARRY, J.M. This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the order dated 29.06.2011 in appeal no. 156/2008-09 by the Commissioner of Income T…

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Dismissed

ITA 1563/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…added this sum as deemed dividend in the hands of M/s. Om Siddi Vinayak Creation Pvt. Ltd. which is not a shareholder in the M/s. Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 & 2008-09 The Hon'ble ITAT 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 (Born.) 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.A0 of the appellant stated that Shri Madan Singh Bharara is a registered and beneficial shareholder of M/s. Gazebo Develop…

ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Om Siddi Vinayak Creations P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 55/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi M/S. Om Siddivinayak Income Tax Officer-8(2)-4 Creations Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 213/A, 2Nd Floor 6Th Floor, Gazebo House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 52, Gulmohar Road Mumbai 400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049 Pan – Aaaco7488F Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-8(2)-4 M/S. Om Siddivinayak Room No. 213/A, 2Nd Floor Creations Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 6Th Floor, Gazebo House Mumbai 400020 Plot No. 52, Gulmohar Road Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049 Pan – Aaaco7488F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipual J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Premanand J

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

…d. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee-company is neither share holder nor the beneficial share holder in the company namely M/s Gazebo Developers Pvt.Ltd. In ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 1 (MUM.)(SB), it has been held by the Special Bench vide para -41, appearing at page 27, of the report as under: “On the first question: 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 other than a shareholder. On the second question: The expression ‘shareholder…

Om Siddivinayak Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)-4, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 8819/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vipual J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Premanand J

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

Pid P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 7182/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…India body, had to follow law laid down by the High Court of any State. A non - jurisdictional High .Court judgment was also binding on the Tribunal. This principle was followed by the Tribunal in Tej International 69 TTJ (Del) 650, Aurangabad Holiday Resorts 118 ITD 1 (Pune) and was also echoed by the Special Bench in Rishi Roop Chemical 36 ITD 35 (Del) (SB). In all of these, non-jurisdictional High court judgments were followed in preference to Special Bench judgments. 2.30 Hence, in view of the above cited reasons, disallowance of commission amounting to Rs.2,28,03,319/-cannot be sustained. We have also gone…

Uma Krishnakumar Mittal, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1481/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh Mrs. Uma Krishnakumar Mittal Income Tax Officer-8(2)-3 12-A/B, Kington, 1St Floor Mumbai Vs. Lokhandwala Complex Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053 Pan – Aagpm3636E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…(A) erred in upholding the re-opening proceeding under section 147 of the Act which were initiated by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed in the case of M/s. Bhaumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. reported in 118 ITD 1 (SB). The Appellant submits that the re-opening proceeding cannot be initiated on the basis of subsequent judicial decision. Hence the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 5. The CIT (A) and A.O. failed to appreciate the facts of the case and merely re-opened the case, relying on the decision of M/s. Bhaumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. re…

Mr.Mn Jahanath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 1652/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Ramaswamy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…pplicable and the amount should be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of only the shareholder. For this proposition, the AO placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. reported in 118 ITD 1 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (324 ITR 363)(Bom). 19. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order, confirmed the addition. ITA Nos.1649 to 1652/Bang/2014 Page 20 20. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal reiterating…

M/S Birendra Chandra Saha, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-39, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nced by M/s. Mascot Woodcrafts Pvt. Ltd. in the hands of Mrs. Kamala Saha. In support of his contention, ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT –vs.- Bhaumik Colour (P) Limited reported in (2009) 118 ITD 1 (MUM.)(SB) I.T.A. No. 541/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 7 of 9 and the decision of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Shiv Transport & Travels –vs.- ITO reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 108 (Kolkata-Trib.). In Bhaumik Colour (P) Limited’s case, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held that section 2(32) defines the expression ‘pe…

D.C.I.T., Cen. Circle-VIII, Kolkata vs. M/S East End Silks (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 38/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, AR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…fits, 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. 7.4. 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…

M/S Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264Section 40

…the order of this Tribunal vide order dated 1-8- 2014 in assessee’s own case, wherein it had decided the issue by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colors Pvt. Ltd reported in (2009) 118 ITD 1(SP) ITAT Mumbai. The relevant portion of the said order at para 4 is reproduced hereunder:- “4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us also assessee produced the shareholders register for the relevant year and filed copy of the relevant shareholders register of Hooghly Mills Project Ltd. i.e…

DCIT, Central Circle - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 601/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 40A(7)(b)

…its, 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. 25. 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 I.T.A.Nos. 601,746,548,747,598 & C.O.32-KOL-2011 Assessment years: 2006-2007 & 2007-08 Page 13 of 31 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…

ITO WD 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Illusion Dental Laboratory P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5619/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5619/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2)(1), Illusion Dental Laboratory Private Room No. 212, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 402/403, Akruti Arcade, J. P. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabci 3029 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Y. S. Jadhav अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dilip T. Warah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 28.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of Cit(A)-17, Mumbai In Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It/113/13-14 Dated 04.6.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Ito U/S. 143 R/W. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 26.03.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Registry Has Noted That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 33 Days, But Subsequently The Revenue Filed A Letter Dated 17.9.2014

For Appellant: Shri Dilip T. Warah

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)

…dend in view of the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition by relying on the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 1 (SB), which was 3 ITO vs. Illusion Dental Laboratory Private Limited eventually confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 262 (Bom). Aggrieved against the action of CIT(A), the Revenue is in second appeal before the tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and g…

Principle Commissioner vs. Sri. Rajeev

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/305/2015HC Karnataka23 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 23Section 260

…ng 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. 26. 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 16 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 t…

Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal, Mumbai vs. ITO(It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…the first condition is that recipient should be a shareholder of the company. So far as the condition regarding person being beneficial owner of share is concerned, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT, Circle 33 vs Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (MUM.)(SB)] has held that the expression "shareholder" in section 2(22)(e) of the Act refers to both registered shareholders and beneficial shareholder. The same view has also been held in the following decisions:- i) Impact Containers (P) Ltd., 367 ITR 346; and ii) Universal Medicare (P0 Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In the present case, the assessee is not a…

Shiv Transport & Travels, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-56(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 889/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Gayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 77A

…that when the Act speaks of shareholder, it refers to the registered shareholder. The Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the ITA No.889/Kol/2015-Shiv Transport & Travels A.Y.2007-08 5 Special Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaumik colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (SB)(Mumbai). 10. The CIT(A) however held that the case of the Assessee would be covered by the provisions of Sec.2(22)( e) of the Act and would within the clause “Loan or Advance” by a company “to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in this clause referred to as the…

M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 405/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 263

…fits, 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. 6.4. 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…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…r however, held that since the assessee is not a shareholder in BRPL(BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.), the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) will not be applicable by virtue of the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colours (P) Ltd. – 118 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB). The parties are accordingly in appeal. The grievance of the assessee against the First Appellate Order is that based upon the provisions of sec. 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applicability of the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act (pertaining to the taxability of deemed divided of Rs.59,27,00,000 ) has not been decided in t…