Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd. v. CIT

119 DTR 49High Court#7364 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd. v. CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of revenue and both the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 74/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…once the parameters mentioned in sec. 2(22)(e) are fulfilled, the liability to tax as deemed dividend arises. However, this stand of the A.O. is contrary to the ruling of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in 119 DTR 49 (Kar.) where it has been held as under:- "27. In this background when we look at the aforesaid provision, it is clear that any payment made by a company by way of advance or loan has to be understood in the context of the object with which the said provision is introduced Though the legislature has introduced `advance' as well as 'loan' which are…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of revenue and both the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 73/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…once the parameters mentioned in sec. 2(22)(e) are fulfilled, the liability to tax as deemed dividend arises. However, this stand of the A.O. is contrary to the ruling of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in 119 DTR 49 (Kar.) where it has been held as under:- "27. In this background when we look at the aforesaid provision, it is clear that any payment made by a company by way of advance or loan has to be understood in the context of the object with which the said provision is introduced Though the legislature has introduced `advance' as well as 'loan' which are…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of revenue and both the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 72/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…once the parameters mentioned in sec. 2(22)(e) are fulfilled, the liability to tax as deemed dividend arises. However, this stand of the A.O. is contrary to the ruling of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in 119 DTR 49 (Kar.) where it has been held as under:- "27. In this background when we look at the aforesaid provision, it is clear that any payment made by a company by way of advance or loan has to be understood in the context of the object with which the said provision is introduced Though the legislature has introduced `advance' as well as 'loan' which are…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/BANG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…once the parameters mentioned in sec. 2(22)(e) are fulfilled, the liability to tax as deemed dividend arises. However, this stand of the A.O. is contrary to the ruling of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in 119 DTR 49 (Kar.) where it has been held as under:- "27. In this background when we look at the aforesaid provision, it is clear that any payment made by a company by way of advance or loan has to be understood in the context of the object with which the said provision is introduced Though the legislature has introduced `advance' as well as 'loan' which are…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI SACHANAND LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 58/BANG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2007-08 Sri Sachanand Ladhani Acit 12, 3Rd Main Road Central Circle-2(3) Vs. Jayamahal Extension Bangalore Bengaluru 560 046 Pan No : Aazpl5063F Appellant Respondent C.O. No.59/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.58/Bang/2018) Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sri Sachanand Ladhani Vs. Acit Central Circle-2(3) Bengaluru 560 046 Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Respondent By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-11, Bangalore & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal On The Following Two Issues:- (A) Deemed Dividend Assessed U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Act – Rs.1.00 Crore (B) Unexplained Investment Of Rs.53,69,040/- Assessed Protectively. Sri Sachanand Ladhani, Bangalore

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…once the parameters mentioned in sec. 2(22)(e) are fulfilled, the liability to tax as deemed dividend arises. However, this stand of the A.O. is contrary to the ruling of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in 119 DTR 49 (Kar.) where it has been held as under:- "27. In this background when we look at the aforesaid provision, it is clear that any payment made by a company by way of advance or loan has to be understood in the context of the object with which the said provision is introduced Though the legislature has introduced `advance' as well as 'loan' which are…

SRI BHASKAR RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1828/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1828 & 1829/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2011-12 Sri S.K Bhaskar Raju, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, #97, 8th Cross, RMV Extension, Range-9, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru. [ITA No.1829/Bang/2016] Bengaluru-560 080. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-9(1), PAN – ABLPB 3852 H Bengaluru. [ITA No.1828/Bang/2016] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hear…

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 118/BANG/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…be loan or advance given with a view to avoid payment of tax on distribution of surplus or profits of the company. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Construction Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49 (Kar). Thus the learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are attracted only when the amount is paid with the intention to avoid payment of Dividend Distribution Tax under Section 115 O of the Act. In the case of the assessee, it was rather beneficial for the B…

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…d from time to time and whatever cash payments were made on behalf of the company, the same was debited to the said account. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions P. Ltd., Vs. CIT 119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of other…