Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

318 ITR 376High Court2009#1409 most cited

What is Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. authority for?

The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) regarding deemed dividends do not apply to transactions between a shareholder and a company that create mutual benefits and obligations, such as trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions.

81

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · accumulated profits · mutual benefits and obligations · trade advances · commercial transactions

Also reported as

277 CTR 338

Sections most often in play

Section 115-OSection 115QSection 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 115qsection 142asection 150surrender of incomeaccumulated profitsmat creditsection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 158bdsection 80icshell company

Judgments citing Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

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)

…er dt. 22nd April, 2016 had followed the principles established by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462. The same principles were also reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd. 318 ITR 376. It is seen from the facts and circumstances of the present case the Appellant had received Rs.15.00 crore from BRIPL on behalf of sister/group company/firm to be formed and it was not received by ie Appellant from BRIPL as a loan. It was part of normal business transactions of assessee and provisions of section 2(22) (e) are not attracted in the…

Madhulika Makkar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6938/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Madhulika Makkar, Vs. Dcit, 5/5 West Patel Nagar, Circle 10(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aavpm9680M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Rohtagi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…tion 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable:- (i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Del); (iii) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT, 338 ITR 538 (Cal); (iv) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Del); and (v) CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain, 18 taxmann.com 132 (Del). Referring to CBDT Circular No.19/2017 dated 12th June, 2017, he submitted 6. that the CBDT in the said Circular has held that trade advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section 2(22)(e) of the IT Ac…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ot be treated deemed dividend as envisaged under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions appellant seeks to place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 318 ITR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) Ltd i) 318 ITR 376 (Del) CIT vs. Amabassador Travels (P) Ltd ii) 318 ITR 462 (Del) CIT vs. Raj Kumar iii) ITA No. 569/2009(Del) dated 3.2.2010 CIT vs. Sunil Sethi iv) ITA NO. 589/2011 (Del) dated 30.09.2011 CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain v) ITA No. 1296, 1297/2011 (Del) dated 2.2.2012 CIT vs. International Land Lastly the nomenclature by the assessee or the opinion of…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ot be treated deemed dividend as envisaged under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions appellant seeks to place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 318 ITR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) Ltd i) 318 ITR 376 (Del) CIT vs. Amabassador Travels (P) Ltd ii) 318 ITR 462 (Del) CIT vs. Raj Kumar iii) ITA No. 569/2009(Del) dated 3.2.2010 CIT vs. Sunil Sethi iv) ITA NO. 589/2011 (Del) dated 30.09.2011 CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain v) ITA No. 1296, 1297/2011 (Del) dated 2.2.2012 CIT vs. International Land Lastly the nomenclature by the assessee or the opinion of…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ot be treated deemed dividend as envisaged under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions appellant seeks to place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 318 ITR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) Ltd i) 318 ITR 376 (Del) CIT vs. Amabassador Travels (P) Ltd ii) 318 ITR 462 (Del) CIT vs. Raj Kumar iii) ITA No. 569/2009(Del) dated 3.2.2010 CIT vs. Sunil Sethi iv) ITA NO. 589/2011 (Del) dated 30.09.2011 CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain v) ITA No. 1296, 1297/2011 (Del) dated 2.2.2012 CIT vs. International Land Lastly the nomenclature by the assessee or the opinion of…

Nutun Malpani, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2029/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Ajai, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 34

…the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transactions would not, in our view, fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(2) of the Act . 2. The Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Ambassador Travels (P) Limited 318 ITR 376 held that It is quite clear that the assessee was a travel agency and the above two concerns that it had dealings with, that is, Mis Holiday Resort (P) Ltd. and M/s Ambassador Tours (India) (P) Ltd. were also in the tourism business. The assessee was involved in the booking of resorts for the customers of these companies and entered into normal b…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur vs. Sakunthala Madala, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 190/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.187/Viz/2018 & 188/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Sri Sudhakar Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9449E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.189/Viz/2018 & 190/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Smt.Sakunthala Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9450F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri M Madhusudan, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2018 12 .09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Ch.Sanjeev, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudan, AR
Section 2(22)(e)

…. (2014) (220 Taxman 331) (Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. (51 taxmann.com 569) (Del) (c) CIT Vs. Amrik Singh (P&H) (231 Taxman 731) (d) CIT Vs. Atul Engineering Udyog (All) (51 taxmasnn.com 569) (e) CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. (318 ITR 376) 3.1. The assessee further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of G.R.Govinda Rajulu Naidu (90ITR 13) to state that the adjustment by way of book entries does not attract the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) of the Act. Further, the assessee relied on the decision of 7 I.T.A Nos.187-190/Viz/2018 Sri Sudhakar Madala and Smt.S…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur vs. Sakunthala Madala, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 189/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.187/Viz/2018 & 188/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Sri Sudhakar Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9449E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.189/Viz/2018 & 190/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Smt.Sakunthala Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9450F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri M Madhusudan, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2018 12 .09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Ch.Sanjeev, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudan, AR
Section 2(22)(e)

…. (2014) (220 Taxman 331) (Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. (51 taxmann.com 569) (Del) (c) CIT Vs. Amrik Singh (P&H) (231 Taxman 731) (d) CIT Vs. Atul Engineering Udyog (All) (51 taxmasnn.com 569) (e) CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. (318 ITR 376) 3.1. The assessee further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of G.R.Govinda Rajulu Naidu (90ITR 13) to state that the adjustment by way of book entries does not attract the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) of the Act. Further, the assessee relied on the decision of 7 I.T.A Nos.187-190/Viz/2018 Sri Sudhakar Madala and Smt.S…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur vs. Sudhakar Madala, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 188/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.187/Viz/2018 & 188/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Sri Sudhakar Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9449E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.189/Viz/2018 & 190/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Smt.Sakunthala Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9450F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri M Madhusudan, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2018 12 .09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Ch.Sanjeev, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudan, AR
Section 2(22)(e)

…. (2014) (220 Taxman 331) (Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. (51 taxmann.com 569) (Del) (c) CIT Vs. Amrik Singh (P&H) (231 Taxman 731) (d) CIT Vs. Atul Engineering Udyog (All) (51 taxmasnn.com 569) (e) CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. (318 ITR 376) 3.1. The assessee further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of G.R.Govinda Rajulu Naidu (90ITR 13) to state that the adjustment by way of book entries does not attract the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) of the Act. Further, the assessee relied on the decision of 7 I.T.A Nos.187-190/Viz/2018 Sri Sudhakar Madala and Smt.S…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Gutnur vs. Sudhakar Madala, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.187/Viz/2018 & 188/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Sri Sudhakar Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9449E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.189/Viz/2018 & 190/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Smt.Sakunthala Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9450F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri M Madhusudan, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2018 12 .09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Ch.Sanjeev, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudan, AR
Section 2(22)(e)

…. (2014) (220 Taxman 331) (Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. (51 taxmann.com 569) (Del) (c) CIT Vs. Amrik Singh (P&H) (231 Taxman 731) (d) CIT Vs. Atul Engineering Udyog (All) (51 taxmasnn.com 569) (e) CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. (318 ITR 376) 3.1. The assessee further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of G.R.Govinda Rajulu Naidu (90ITR 13) to state that the adjustment by way of book entries does not attract the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) of the Act. Further, the assessee relied on the decision of 7 I.T.A Nos.187-190/Viz/2018 Sri Sudhakar Madala and Smt.S…

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ion 2(22)(e) of the Act, does not apply as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT in ITA No.219 of 2003 decided on 02/08/2011. He relied on the judgment in the case of CIT v. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), for the proposition that when loan was given in the ordinary course of business, Section 2(22)(e) does not apply. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 46, for the proposition that when trade advance which is in the nature of money transacted to give effect to comme…

Vinod Kumar Mittal, Beawar vs. ITO, Ajmer

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

ITA 783/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…oneys payable by the latter to the assessee company in the subsequent years, same did not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e).” (2) Mtar Technologies (P) Ltd. v/s ACIT 39 SOT 465 (Hyd Trib) (3) CIT v/s Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 376 (Del HC) (4) DCIT v/s Lakra Brothers (2007) 106 TTJ 250 (Chand. Trib) (DPB 41- 47), it was held that “The important words in the section are loan or advance and for the individual benefit of such shareholders. The loan is something different from debt. For a loan there must be a lender, borrower as well as a contract/agreement between the partie…

Al-Azi Polymers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT WD 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Al-Azi Polymers, The Asst. Commissioner 1 Net Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Ward 21(3), Andheri East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Aagfa4589A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 2(20)(e)Section 2(22)(e)

…e holder of the assessee company but it is a normal business transactions which are out of purview of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 376. The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of Revenue Authorities. 3 M/s. AL-AZI Polymers 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Amba…

Sri.K.M. Ashik, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ant relies on the following decisions. CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 476. The departmental SLP filed against this decision has been dismissed by the supreme court ( 328 ITR (St)10) (SC) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 376 The matter has now been put beyond doubt by the CBDT through its circular No.19/2017 (F.N0.279/MISC/140/2015/ITJ) dated 12.06.2017 in which it has been clarified that trade advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word "advances " in S.2(22) (e) of the Act.” 5. The Ld. DR relied on the or…

Sri.K.M. Ashik, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ant relies on the following decisions. CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 476. The departmental SLP filed against this decision has been dismissed by the supreme court ( 328 ITR (St)10) (SC) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 376 The matter has now been put beyond doubt by the CBDT through its circular No.19/2017 (F.N0.279/MISC/140/2015/ITJ) dated 12.06.2017 in which it has been clarified that trade advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word "advances " in S.2(22) (e) of the Act.” 5. The Ld. DR relied on the or…

Sri.K.M. Ashik, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ant relies on the following decisions. CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 476. The departmental SLP filed against this decision has been dismissed by the supreme court ( 328 ITR (St)10) (SC) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 376 The matter has now been put beyond doubt by the CBDT through its circular No.19/2017 (F.N0.279/MISC/140/2015/ITJ) dated 12.06.2017 in which it has been clarified that trade advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word "advances " in S.2(22) (e) of the Act.” 5. The Ld. DR relied on the or…