Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

28 SOT 383Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#2279 most cited

What is Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Loans or advances made by a company in the normal course of business, out of business expediency, or as current account transactions, do not attract the provisions of section 2(22)(e) concerning deemed dividends.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v. DCIT · 28 SOT 383 · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loan transactions · normal course of business · business expediency · current account transaction · non-applicability of section 2(22)(e)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 10Section 115JBSection 119Section 132(1)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 150surrender of incomemat creditaccumulated profitssection 2(22)section 158bddeemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 80icshell companyretracted statement

Judgments citing Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

ITA 506/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…g outside the scope of deemed dividends as per the statutory provision. Reliance has been placed on following case laws : i). DCIT vs Futurz Next Services Ltd. (Del Trib) (ITA No. 3556/Del/2016) dated 04.01.2022 ii). Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Bom) iii). “Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO., 82 ITR 0046, (Delhi ITAT), 31. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that the assessee provided personal guarantees to SEPL in order to secure credit facilities from banks which included a fund-based limit of Rs.42.85 crore and a non-fund-based limit of Rs.1…

DCIT, CC 1, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 153DSection 2

…g outside the scope of deemed dividends as per the statutory provision. Reliance has been placed on following case laws : i). DCIT vs Futurz Next Services Ltd. (Del Trib) (ITA No. 3556/Del/2016) dated 04.01.2022 ii). Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Bom) iii). “Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO., 82 ITR 0046, (Delhi ITAT), 31. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that the assessee provided personal guarantees to SEPL in order to secure credit facilities from banks which included a fund-based limit of Rs.42.85 crore and a non-fund-based limit of Rs.1…

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…g outside the scope of deemed dividends as per the statutory provision. Reliance has been placed on following case laws : i). DCIT vs Futurz Next Services Ltd. (Del Trib) (ITA No. 3556/Del/2016) dated 04.01.2022 ii). Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Bom) iii). “Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO., 82 ITR 0046, (Delhi ITAT), 31. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that the assessee provided personal guarantees to SEPL in order to secure credit facilities from banks which included a fund-based limit of Rs.42.85 crore and a non-fund-based limit of Rs.1…

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…g outside the scope of deemed dividends as per the statutory provision. Reliance has been placed on following case laws : i). DCIT vs Futurz Next Services Ltd. (Del Trib) (ITA No. 3556/Del/2016) dated 04.01.2022 ii). Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Bom) iii). “Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO., 82 ITR 0046, (Delhi ITAT), 31. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that the assessee provided personal guarantees to SEPL in order to secure credit facilities from banks which included a fund-based limit of Rs.42.85 crore and a non-fund-based limit of Rs.1…

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

….T.A No.174/Kol/2019 & I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 M/s Merino Industries Ltd wherein, the Tribunal further relying upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT” reported in [2009] 28 SOT 383 (Bom) and also on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of “Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT” 338 ITR 538(Cal), has held that where the loan transactions are in the normal course of business and out of business expediency and are representing current account transaction, in such type of transactions, the provisions of sec…

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

…hree Krishna Gyanodya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT” in ITA No.1008/Kol/2016 dated 14.02.2018, wherein, the Tribunal further relying upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT" reported in [2009] 28 SOT 383 (Bom) and also on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of “Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT” 338 ITR 538(Cal), has held that where the loan transactions are in the normal course of business and out of business expediency and are representing current account transaction, in such type of transactions, the provisions of sec…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held that "section 2(22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within its sweep certain payments made by a company as per the situations enumerated in the Section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider meaning that what it purports to do. The p…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held that "section 2(22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within its sweep certain payments made by a company as per the situations enumerated in the Section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider meaning that what it purports to do. The p…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held that "section 2(22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within its sweep certain payments made by a company as per the situations enumerated in the Section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider meaning that what it purports to do. The p…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held that "section 2(22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within its sweep certain payments made by a company as per the situations enumerated in the Section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider meaning that what it purports to do. The p…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held that "section 2(22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within its sweep certain payments made by a company as per the situations enumerated in the Section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider meaning that what it purports to do. The p…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2204/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsaamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Central Circle – 19 B-67, Sarita Vihar, B, New Delhi New Delhi-110 076 Pan No. Aajcs 4952 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Srhi M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2023

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

…therefore, it could not be added u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dye & Printing Works reported in 318 ITR 476 (Del), Bombay Oil Industry vs. DCIT reported in 28 SOT 383 (Mumbai), Ravindra R. Fotedar vs. ACIT reported in 167 ITD 100 (Mumbai) & Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3618/Del/2014 dated 12.01.2010. In support of his contentions that the transactions between the assessee and Saga Developers P. Ltd. was in the nature of current account, he pointed to copy of ledger account of Saga Developers P. Ltd. as ap…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Dhariya Construction Pvt Ltd, Pune

ITA 1938/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1938/Pn/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…her provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) can be invoked in case of "Inter Corporate Deposit”. Sec.2(22)(e) clearly mentions the term advance or loan and not deposits. Mumbai Tribunal n the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) - TIOL-297, ITAT,Mum; (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Mum) has held that Inter corporate deposits cannot be treated as a loan falling with the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon. Mumbai Tribunal (supra) is reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity: A.Y. 2011-12, Dhariya Construction Pvt. Ltd., "From the above it is clear there is…

Pallava Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 700/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:700/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2011 – 2012

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sundraraman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…less the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of The Bombay Oil Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in [2009] 28 SOT 383 (Mum.) :: 11 :: I.T.A No.:700/CHNY/2020 wherein it is held that “Section 2(22)(e) of the Act enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within its sweep certain payments made by a company as per the situations enumerated in the Section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider…

Mandava Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 313/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…gs & Investment Corporation (2003) 185 CTR 136 (Allahabad High Court) • Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 1084 (Delhi, ITAT) • Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd vs. ACIT (2008) 119 TTJ 73 (Ahm. SB). • Bombay Oil Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Mumbai, ITAT) 5.2. I have carefully considered the assessment order, facts of the case, case laws and submissions made by the appellant. The submissions of the appellant are rejected due to the reasons mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, I am in agreement with the Assessing Officer and the addition made by the A…

Mandava Holdings Private Limtied, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1702/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…gs & Investment Corporation (2003) 185 CTR 136 (Allahabad High Court) • Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 1084 (Delhi, ITAT) • Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd vs. ACIT (2008) 119 TTJ 73 (Ahm. SB). • Bombay Oil Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Mumbai, ITAT) 5.2. I have carefully considered the assessment order, facts of the case, case laws and submissions made by the appellant. The submissions of the appellant are rejected due to the reasons mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, I am in agreement with the Assessing Officer and the addition made by the A…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND 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.…

Digvijay Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 519/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 5

…y interested. Besides, CIT(A) has also held that the said money was received by the assessee as inter-corporate deposit. The learned CIT(A) has relied on the decision of co- ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT 28 SOT 383 (Mum), wherein a clear distinction has been drawn between inter-corporate deposit viz. Loans/advances and it has been clearly held that inter-corporate deposit do not come under the purview of deemed dividend defined u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the CIT(A…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Digvijay Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5708/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 5

…y interested. Besides, CIT(A) has also held that the said money was received by the assessee as inter-corporate deposit. The learned CIT(A) has relied on the decision of co- ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT 28 SOT 383 (Mum), wherein a clear distinction has been drawn between inter-corporate deposit viz. Loans/advances and it has been clearly held that inter-corporate deposit do not come under the purview of deemed dividend defined u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the CIT(A…

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

ITA 1944/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. To support his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1977 AIR 597 (SC); ii. Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 28 SOT 383 (Mumbai). 4. On the other hand Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. DR submitted that the Board Resolution referred by the assessee in his submissions were never filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A…