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

M/S Mirik Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka vs. PCIT, Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1059/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 M/S Mirik Commercial Pvt. V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd., 15B, Everest House, Income Tax, Central, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-2 Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aaecm 1753 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hanghing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Disputing The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.03.2014 Who Set Aside The Assessment Order Date 04.03.2014 For Assessment Year 2011-12 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G. Hanghing, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Ld. Principal Cit, Kolkata-2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act In Order To Impose His Own Views On The Ld. Ao. By Holding That The Order Passed By The

Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…hus, it cannot be termed as advance taken by assessee as it was fluctuating during the year. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2009] 28 SOT 383 (Bom), wherein it was held as under:- “From the above it is clear there is distinction between deposits viz-a-vis loans/advances. Section 2(22)(e) 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.…

M/S Sree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1008/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13

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

…hus, it cannot be termed as advance taken by assessee as it was fluctuating during the year. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2009] 28 SOT 383 (Bom), wherein it was held as under:- “From the above it is clear there is distinction between deposits viz-a-vis loans/advances. Section 2(22)(e) 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.…

I.T.O WD - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Avro Commercial Company Limited., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed as stated above

ITA 21/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member, and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 21/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 I.T.O Ward 7(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Avro Commercial Company. Ltd PAN: AAECA 1892M (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No. 28/Kol/2013 [ arising out of ITA No. 21/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 M/s. Avro Commercial Company. Ltd Vs. I.T.O Ward 7(1), Kolkata (Cross Objector) (Respondent/Department) For the Appellant/Department: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR For the Cross Objector/Assessee: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, ld.AR Date of Hearin…

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)

…mently submitted that trading advances wrongly treated as deemed 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sindhu Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2766/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…s Provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to Inter Corporate Deposits. They are applicable to payments by way of advance or loans only. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (ITAT Mum) (Copy enclosed) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai has held that since there is a clear distinction between the words advance or loan and Inter Corporate Deposits and hence deeming provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be applied to Inter Corporate Deposits. 5. Section 2(22)(e): Not applicable to loan or advance…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Infomedia 18 Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4846/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…eport to substantiate as to why the sum of Rs 11.80 crores are not "inter-corporate deposits" and instead these are "loans and advances". "loans and advances" are not the same as deposits. Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT , in the case of Bombay Oil Industries reported in 28 SOT 383 (Mum) has held as under: ―From the above it is clear there is distinction between deposits vis-a-vis loans/advances. Section 2(22)( e) enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within the situations enumerated in the section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider meaning than w…

Infomedia Press Ltd ( Formerly Known Infomedia 18 Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…eport to substantiate as to why the sum of Rs 11.80 crores are not "inter-corporate deposits" and instead these are "loans and advances". "loans and advances" are not the same as deposits. Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT , in the case of Bombay Oil Industries reported in 28 SOT 383 (Mum) has held as under: ―From the above it is clear there is distinction between deposits vis-a-vis loans/advances. Section 2(22)( e) enacts a deeming fiction whereby the scope and ambit of the word dividend has been enlarged to bring within the situations enumerated in the section. Such a deeming fiction would not be given a wider meaning than w…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sindhu Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2768/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…s Provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to Inter Corporate Deposits. They are applicable to payments by way of advance or loans only. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (ITAT Mum) (Copy placed on record) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai has held that since there is a clear distinction between the words advance or loan and Inter Corporate Deposits and hence deeming provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be applied to Inter Corporate Deposits. 5. Section 2(22)(e): Not applicable to loan or…

M/S. Sindhu Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…s Provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to Inter Corporate Deposits. They are applicable to payments by way of advance or loans only. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383 (ITAT Mum) (Copy placed on record) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai has held that since there is a clear distinction between the words advance or loan and Inter Corporate Deposits and hence deeming provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be applied to Inter Corporate Deposits. 5. Section 2(22)(e): Not applicable to loan or…

CIT vs. International Land Development Pvt Ltd

ITA/1296/2011HC Delhi02 Feb 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 20v

…o/o $-3&4 * ilY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + tTA 1296120rl & ITA r297l20lr CIT ..... APPellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Adv. VETSUS INTERNATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER 02.02.2012 These two appeals by the Revenue impugn a common order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of IWs. International Land Development Pvt. Ltd. The appeals relate to assessment year 2005-06 and 2007-08. The Assessing Officer h…