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.

84

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 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.

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 22Section 23

…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. The Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Bhaumik 26. 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 Page 11 of 16 assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hand…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Lanson Homes Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2241/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2241/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri N. Rengaraj, CITFor Respondent: Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

…ity. It has come on record that the present is only a ‘protective’ addition over and above the ‘substantive’ one already made in the hands of the concerned entity’s shareholders. In these circumstances, we quote case law ACIT vs Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. [2009]118 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB) and CIT vs Ankitech Pvt. Ltd [2011] 11 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi) and hold that a deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act can I.T.A.No.2241/13 :- 4 -: only be made in the hands of a registered or beneficial shareholder. The Revenue fails to point out any distinction on facts. In these circumstances, we uphold the CIT(A)’s o…

CIT vs. National Travel Services

Appeal Is allowed set

ITA - 309 / 2011HC Delhi11 Jul 2011
Section 2

…ith the.-: same, view expressed by the " ■-. ■Bombay.-.High Court:\r[ Cdmmlssminer pf t's.;"- .. : . . . Universal Medica.te'.'.CP) 190-Taxman 144 " (Bom.) , which had approved the decision,.,of. .the Specie Bench ■ Mumbai. in the case-of -^OT.-Vs.' L&dld - 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB), and :Rajasthan High-Court in:the case Of CommsssBoniet :of '-Bncdme Tax Vs. (CTR (Raji) .527. ':hy v .7 . y y 'Tt'- !17. Though, in, these, appeals also we. are. concerned ■with the. - t,.-another facet of this. . ITA 22.3/2010,219/2010,1204/2010,309/2.011 I Page 8 of 28 2011:DHC:14828-DB provislo:n .has ariseh; for consid5ratiori.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd

ITA/462/2009HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…the voting power in JGPL. ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. Page 11 of 50 7. We may point out at this stage that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB). The said decision of the Special Bench has been affirmed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 190 Taxman 144 (Bom.) 8. Before we discuss the aforesaid decision, it would be prudent to take note of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It reads as under:…