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.

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)

…which it was held that advance received to purchase the material for the purpose of executing the job work entrusted to the assessee is a trade advance and will not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e). In the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has taken the view that the business transaction entered into by the assessee could not be treated as “loans” or “advances” within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). This decision was followed by the Delhi High 15 Shri Ravindra R Fotedar Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., 318…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Roop Bansal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5672/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…ncements support the appellant’s case that a commercial transaction is not hit by provisions of section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961: (i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del), (ii) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 376 (Del) (m) CIT vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462(Del), (iv) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538(Cal), and (v) ACIT Vs. Sunil Chopra 002 ITR (Trib.) 469 (Del.) 8.15 Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case as discussed above, material available on record, including the additional evidence and also the remand report of th…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Roop Bansal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…ncements support the appellant’s case that a commercial transaction is not hit by provisions of section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961: (i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del), (ii) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 376 (Del) (m) CIT vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462(Del), (iv) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538(Cal), and (v) ACIT Vs. Sunil Chopra 002 ITR (Trib.) 469 (Del.) 8.15 Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case as discussed above, material available on record, including the additional evidence and also the remand report of th…

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)

…e account of assessee's husband. Therefore the said payment cannot be regarded as advance or loan to the assessee to avoid the DDT under Section 115 ‘O’ of the Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 277 CTR 338 (Kar) has observed in paras 24 to 27 as under : “ 24. Therefore, from the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the purpose of the insertion of sub-clause (e) of Section 2(22) of the Act was to bring within the tax net accumulated profits which are distributed by closely held companies to his shareholders in the form of loans to avoid payment of…

S.M. Arshad, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1384/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri S.M.Arshad, Flat No.604, Door No.14-2-175-40, Light House Condominium, Light House Hill Road, Mangalore-575001. … Appellant Pa No.Aczpa0799F Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Mangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…s substantial interest, such amount of loan or advance is taxable in the hands of the Page 7 of 9 shareholder as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In fact, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Bagmane Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015)(277 CTR 338)(Kar) following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263 held that when a payment is made to any concern falling under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 2, tax is leviable as deemed dividend in the hands of shareholder only and not in the hands of concern. The relev…

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 5722/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ssessee. In view thereof, it is held that the sum advanced by M/s Sanyog Estate Pvt. Ltd is for the purpose of the business and purely on deemed dividend. 8.3 That the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd. reported in [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) has held that if the transactions are normal business transactions, which were carried out during the course of the relevant previous year, they cannot be described as advances or loans, which form a distinct category of financial transactions and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)( e) of the Act were not at all applicable. Similar…

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ssessee. In view thereof, it is held that the sum advanced by M/s Sanyog Estate Pvt. Ltd is for the purpose of the business and purely on deemed dividend. 8.3 That the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd. reported in [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) has held that if the transactions are normal business transactions, which were carried out during the course of the relevant previous year, they cannot be described as advances or loans, which form a distinct category of financial transactions and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)( e) of the Act were not at all applicable. Similar…

Asst.C.I.T., Hubli vs. M/S Bellad & Co, Hubli

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

ITA 1029/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant PA No: AABFB6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli. … Respondent AND Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.R.Nulvi, CA Revenue by : Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the asses…

M/S Bellad & Company, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

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

ITA 1004/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant PA No: AABFB6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli. … Respondent AND Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.R.Nulvi, CA Revenue by : Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the asses…

Suresh Enterprises Private Limited, Hubli vs. ACIT, Hubli

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

ITA 1284/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Suresh Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Akshay Chabbi Corner, Akshay Centre, Gokul Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccs4691 N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubli. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 2(22)(e)

…de Promoters Pvt. Ltd. the amount of Rs. 1,73,262/- cannot be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ” The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) (277 CTR 338)(Kar) held that in a case where loans are advanced/granted to a concern which falls under clause (e) of sub-sec.(22) of sec.2, tax is leviable as deemed dividend only in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern. The relevant part is extracted below: “30. It was also contended on behalf of the revenue that having regard to…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Gharda Chemicals Latd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar
Section 145ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “जी जी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ G ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./559/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Off Vs. Turner Road, Bandra (W),Mumb…

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 9(1), Mumbai

ITA 5348/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. Pan: Aaacg 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8376/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8758/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Dcit, Circle-9(1) Vs. M/S.Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 018. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Debashish Chandra Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal Bohra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal BohraFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra
Section 254(1)

…gh Court in fact followed the principles established by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393. 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. In view of these principles, we are of the view that the commercial transactions between two companies could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Accordingly on merits also we find no case to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The grounds 1,2 & 3 are therefore rejected. 13. In the result, ap…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 6321/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Chand, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 80H

…gh Court in fact followed the principles established by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393. 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. In view of these principles, we are of the view that the commercial transactions between two companies could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Accordingly on merits also we find no case to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The grounds 1,2 & 3 are therefore reject". 5. Learned Departmenta…

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Chand, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 80H

…gh Court in fact followed the principles established by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393. 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. In view of these principles, we are of the view that the commercial transactions between two companies could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Accordingly on merits also we find no case to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The grounds 1,2 & 3 are therefore reject". 5. Learned Departmenta…

Taurian Engineering P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3129/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 3129/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Taurian Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Jt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 302-A, Poonam Chamberes, (Osd)-4(3), फनधभ/ 3Rd Floor, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400018 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcm8782H (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri J P Bairagra प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri R A Dhyani सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 08.03.2016 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4.2.2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Upholding Of The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,09,75,000/- Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…dividend. In support of his arguments the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : a) CIT V/s Nagindas M Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom); b) Bombay Oil Industries Ltd V/s DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383(Mum); c) CIT V/s Ambassador Travells (P) Ltd ((2009) 318 ITR 376) (Del); d) NH Securities Ltd V/s DCIT (2007) 11 SOT 302 (Mumba); e) CIT V/s Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462(Del); f) CIT V/s P K Badiani (1970) 76 ITR 369) (Bom); g) Anilkumar Agarwal V/s ITO (2011)138 TTJ 175) Mum); and h) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd V/s CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363(SC) 5. Per contra the ld DR relied heavily on the orders of authorities be…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross

ITA 4806/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nirupama Kotru, CIT, DR

…n. Hence, the security deposit is not in the nature of a loan, but, is a consideration for the benefit which the company has acquired by getting property on rent. He placed reliance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. (2008) 318 ITR 376 (Del); (b) CIT vs. Creative & Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 416 (Del) (c) Sunil Sethi vs. DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 95 (Del). 33. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we are in agreement with the ld.CIT(A) that the consideration in question received by the assessee is not covered by section 2(22)(e) of the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross

ITA 4802/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nirupama Kotru, CIT, DR

…n. Hence, the security deposit is not in the nature of a loan, but, is a consideration for the benefit which the company has acquired by getting property on rent. He placed reliance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. (2008) 318 ITR 376 (Del); (b) CIT vs. Creative & Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 416 (Del) (c) Sunil Sethi vs. DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 95 (Del). 33. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we are in agreement with the ld.CIT(A) that the consideration in question received by the assessee is not covered by section 2(22)(e) of the…

Vivek I Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3598/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3598/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ Shri Vivek I Gupta, The Ito-12(2)(2), D/21, Dhanraj Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Csm Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepg 1004E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :09.12.2015

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)

…ary course of business of trading in derivatives, therefore, the transactions are outside the purview of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 376. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pradipkumar Malhotra Vs CIT 338 ITR 538. The Ld. Counsel concluded by stating that since the transactions are purely commercial in nature, therefore, provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied. 4 ITA. No.3598/M/2013 8. Per contra, the Ld…

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

…f advancement of loan/advance, the recipient should be a shareholder and if it is not so established, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: − CIT vs. Ankitech (P.) Ltd.: 318 ITR 376 (Del) − CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. : 324 ITR 263 (Bom) − CIT vs. Suram Holdings (P.) Ltd.: 220 Taxman 327 (Raj.) − ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd.: 118 ITD 1 (MUM.) (SB) 87.13 In the instant case, the assessee did not have any ‘direct shareholding’ in BRPL in the assessment year under consideration and was therefore not a ‘shareholder’…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, New Delhi

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

ITA 2917/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), N-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aagpg8032N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Iv, New Delhi, Dated 27.02.2013, Passed For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. Whether The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 53,29,843/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Ignoring The Fact That The Advances Had Not Been Made In The Ordinary Course Of Business Expediency & The Assessee Had Been Regularly Repaying The Amount Received From The Company. Ii. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary From The Company, Namely, M/S A.K.G. Industries

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…red opinion, these transactions one in ordinary course of business of the said company, cannot be treated as deemed dividend. The reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. CIT Vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Del.) ii. CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Del.) iii. CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P.) Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del) iv. Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT, 38 ITR 538 (Cal.) v. CIT Vs. International Land Development Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1296, 1297/Del/2013, Dt. 02.02.2012 The ratio laid down in the above cases is followed by a coordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of M/s Percy Peshota…