ACIT v. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd.

313 ITR 146Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#6343 most cited

What is ACIT v. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. authority for?

Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is taxable only in the hands of a 'registered' shareholder and does not apply to a non-shareholder, even if they have a common director with a controlling stake.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Bhaumik Colour · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · shareholder · non-shareholder · loan recipient · common director · registered shareholder · Income Tax Act

Judgments citing ACIT v. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd.

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2948/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

…holding of common director cannot be taken into consideration for that purpose.  Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd [2014- ITRV-HC- MUM-112] has held that the law laid down in Universal Medicare 324 ITR 263 (Bom) (approving Bhaumik Color 313 ITR 146 (SB)), that s 2(22)(e) does not apply to a non-shareholder, is a good law.  Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Universal Medicare 324 ITR 263 (Bom) has held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "I.T. Act) cannot be invoked as the assessee company was not a shareholder in the lending company. The argument in al…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…sions of theauthorities in support of this proposition which are briefly noted in the written submission filed which is reproduced in the preceding paras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no di…

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…sions of theauthorities in support of this proposition which are briefly noted in the written submission filed which is reproduced in the preceding paras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no di…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…sions of theauthorities in support of this proposition which are briefly noted in the written submission filed which is reproduced in the preceding paras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no di…

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…sions of theauthorities in support of this proposition which are briefly noted in the written submission filed which is reproduced in the preceding paras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no di…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…sions of theauthorities in support of this proposition which are briefly noted in the written submission filed which is reproduced in the preceding paras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no di…

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…sions of theauthorities in support of this proposition which are briefly noted in the written submission filed which is reproduced in the preceding paras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no di…

BHOTIKA TRADE & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2034/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2034/Kol./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bhotika Trade & Services Pvt. Ltd., V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Epms, Vasant Square Mall, Plot-A, S Tax, Circle-9(1), Sector-B, Pocket-V, Community Kolkata-700069 Centre, Sf-11, 2Nd Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb5790K Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…a closing debit balance of Rs.54.30 lakhs as on 30.03.2012. 8. Hence, keeping in view the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 14, judgments of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 146 and keeping in view the fact that the transactions are in the nature of regular business transactions which are not liable to be taxed u/s 2(22)(e) as held in the case of CIT Vs Suraj Devi Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H), we hereby hold that no addition in the hands of the assessee is called for u/s 2(22)(e). ITA No. 2034/Kol./2017 4 Bhotika Trade & Serv…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANDESH RAJENDRA LODHA,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 650/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Ahmednagar. बनाम / V/S. Sandesh Rajendra Lodha, Bunglow No.5-6, Maniknagar, Near Anand Rishi Hospital, Ahmednagar-414001. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Abepl6658E Revenue By : Mrs. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 2, Pune Dated 14.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2 Is Contrary To Law & To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,03,61,119/- Made By The Ao U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Grossly Erred, In Ignoring The Finding Of Facts By The Ao That On Verification Of Ledger Of Gepl Appearing In The Books Of Gaepl, That Gaepl Had Sold Aluminum Scrap To Gepl For Which Separate Account Was Maintained. Therefore, The Loan / Advances Given By Gaepl To Gepl Through Separate Account Cannot Be Considered As Trade Advances But Loan / Advances Only.

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 2(22)(e)

…Oil Industries Ltd. (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Mum.-Trib.). Relying on the Jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Bhaumik Colour 5 Pvt. Ltd., 313 ITR 146 (Mum-Trib.)(SB), it was argued that the said amount cannot be added in the hands of the “beneficiary” shareholder i.e. the assessee in this case. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee deleting the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as per the discussion given in para 4.2.4 of his order. 9.…

ACIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY LTD DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1348/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…been laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay Court in the case of CIT vs Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.), where the Hon’ble High Court by 24 following its earlier decision in the case of Universal Medicare 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) (324 ITR 263)(Bom) and Bhaumik Colours (313 ITR 146)(Bom.) held that when the recipient of the loan was not a shareholder in any of the entities which have advanced loans and advance, then the addition is required to be deleted. This legal proposition is further supported by the decision of the jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai, “B” Bench in the case of M/s Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No.3…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 242/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40S(2)(b)

…Medicare (P) Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) -ACIT -vs.- Hotel Hilltop (2009) 313 ITR 116 (Raj) -CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (ITA No. 1970(2013 dated 20-01-2015) -CIT v/so Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367ITR 346 (Bom) -ACIT -vs.- Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 146 (Mum SB) -Dhall Properties Pvt. Ltd. -vs.-ITO (ITA No. 70/Kol/2012) -DCIT -vs.- Meenakshi Tea Co. Ltd.(1TA No. 953/Kol/2011) The appellant would like to submit that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has SC upholds Delhi HC ruling in Ankitech Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Bombay HC ruling in Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in a batch of over 135 app…

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Oct 2018AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member A.Y.: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 4(1), vs. M/s Roger Industries Ltd., Agra. 8B/7A, Dev Nagar, Bye Pass Road, Agra PAN AADCR 7954 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Deependra Mohan, Advocate Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 11.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2018 ORDER Per Dr.Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This is the Department’s appeal filed against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Agra, in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09, raising following gr…

DCIT,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAM BAKE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1878/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Dream Bake (P) Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 296, Kalu Khan Road, Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkat-154 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 1189 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Ghosh, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 19-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.07.2016, Passed In Case No.1839/Cit(A)/4/Circle-10(1)/Kol/14-15, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Making Section 2(22)(E) Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹90,98,080/- In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Sec. 2(22)(E) Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹2,42,00,000/- In Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2015. Learned Departmental Representative Invites Our Attention To The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reading As Under:- “5. Ground No.2 This Ground Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ao In Making Addition Of ₹2,42,00,000/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act. This Matte Is Discussed From Para 4 To Para 4.3

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

…in this context itself, the appellant company not being the registered shareholder, the appellant is outside the scope of section 2(22)(e) This is the ratio of the oft cited decision of the hon'ble ITAT Special Bench in ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 146 (Mum SB). Another aspect which needs to be kept in mind is that tax on dividend has undergone antipodal change. Since several years now there is tax paid at source itself upon the declaring of dividend [section 115-O]; and such tax—paid dividend is exclude from ITA No.1878/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kol. Vs. M/s DreamBake (P) Ltd. Pag…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SEASONS HOTEL PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2051/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Us, I.E. Seasons Hotels Pvt Ltd, Is Not A Shareholder In Inder Hotels Pvt Ltd. Yet, The Assessing Officer Treated Inter Corporate Loan From Inder Hotels Pvt Ltd, To The Extent Of Accumulated Profits Of Rs.99,50,273/-, As Deemed Dividend On The Ground That “The Assessee Company Has Received Loan From The Company Having Substantial Interest In The Company”. Even The Tribunal’S Decision In Favour Of The Assessee, On The Same Issue, Were Held To Be “Unacceptable”, As The Same Not Have Been Accepted By The Revenue Authorities. However, When Matter Travelled In Appeal Before The Cit(A), He Reversed The Action Of The Assessing Officer & Observed As Follows:- Dcit V/S Seasons Hotels Pvt Ltd Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Page 2 Of 3

Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA No. 2051/Ahd/2015 DCIT v/s Seasons Hotels Pvt Ltd Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and S S Godara JM] Assessment year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, .......…………......Appellant Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Seasons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. .......................Respondent 469/7, Parsi Chawl, Kalupur, Sakar Bazar, Opp. Maskati Market, Ahmedabad - 380002 [PAN : AAFCS 7065 K] Appearances by: Mudit Nagpal for the appellant PD Shah for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 23.10.2017 Date of pronounci…

THE ACIT,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CASIL HEALTH PRODUCTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1707/AHD/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1707/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N.Soparkar with Shri Parin Shah, ARs
Section 2(22)(e)

…t extend to or broaden the concept of a ‘shareholder’. As the assessee is not a shareholder of the lender-company, the receipt is not susceptible to tax under s.2(22)(e) in its hands in view of long line of judicial precedents including Baumik Colour Pvt.Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (Bom)[SB] approved in Universal of Medicare 324 363 (Bom) and CIT vs. Impact Containers (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom). In view of the judicial precedents governing the issue, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” DCIT vs. Casil Health Products Ltd. Asst.Year –…

RAVINDRA R. FOTEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6778/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2010 – 2011 Ravindra R Fotedar Acit 10(2) 7 Bharat Tirth Society, Mumbai Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan Aacpf1616R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)

…olding not less than ten per cent of the voting power of the company; (c) The person is a member or partner in other concern (d) The person has substantial interest in the concern referred to in clause (c) above. 5. In case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT). The Special Bench held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not spell out as to whether the income has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder or the concern (non shareholder). It further observed that since the provisions are ambiguous, it is therefore necessary to examine the intention behind enacting the provisions of section…

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BONIE APPARELS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1295/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

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

…. Limited during the year under consideration and, therefore, the amount in question received by it from the said company cannot be treated as deemed dividend as held by the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Limited reported in 313 ITR 146 (AT). In this regard, he has invited our attention to the details of shareholders of M/s. Bonie Impex Pvt. Limited as on 31.03.2008 placed at page no. 5 of the paper book to point out that the assessee-company was not the shareholder of M/s. Bonie Impex Pvt. Limited and contended that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the additi…

FINCO HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Shri. G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ed. The assessee reiterates its argument raised in the lower appellate proceedings that it is not a shareholder in the lender company. The Revenue fails to convert this factual position. We find that a Special Bench of the ‘tribunal’ in Bhaumik Colour [2009] 313 ITR 146 Mumbai has held in the very circumstances that section 2(22) (e) does not apply in case of common shareholders and the debtor entity itself should be a shareholder in the creditor entity. The parties inform us that hon’ble Bombay high court has affirmed this decision. The hon’ble Delhi high court in ITA No.462/2009 CIT vs ANKITECH Private Limit…

ACIT v. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. (313 ITR 146) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax