CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd.

432 ITR 146High Court2021#3591 most cited

What is CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. authority for?

Trade advances that are in the nature of commercial transactions do not fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · trade advances · commercial transactions · accumulated profits

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 115-OSection 115QSection 132Section 153ASection 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 CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd.

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

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

…538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the above referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the company create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum received by the shareholder out of accumulated profits as deemed dividend would n…

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

…538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the above referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the company create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum received by the shareholder out of accumulated profits as deemed dividend would n…

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

…538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the above referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the company create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum received by the shareholder out of accumulated profits as deemed dividend would n…

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)

…538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the above referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the company create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum received by the shareholder out of accumulated profits as deemed dividend would n…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 21. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions…

Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1059/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 21. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1052/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 38. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1050/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 38. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions…

Raj Hemant Shroff, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 986/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Hemant Shroff Acit-6(1)(1), Mumbai 11, Vallabh Apartments, Bhulabhai Vs Desai Road Breach Candy, Mumbai-400036. Pan: Aacps 5875 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…rinting (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Delhi HC), VIT vs M/s. Critive dyeing & Printing P. Ltd. (CC 8558/2010)(SC), PCIT vs Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 140 taxmann.com 33 (SC), CIT vs Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462 (Delhi HC), Smt. Jamuna Vemekar vs DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka), Circular No. 19/2017 by CBDT on the proposition that when the amount was given for business purpose of the company, the same would not fall within the definition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the case of the assessee as discussed supra, we find that transactions were routed through the bank account of the assessee on…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 14. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 14. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ffect from 21.05.2007. 22. Now we will examine the above documents in the light of below mentioned case laws:- i. In the case of Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgement reported in (2021) 432 ITR 146 held as under:- “Under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is only where a loan is advanced by a company to a registered shareholder and the other conditions as set out in section 2(22)(e) are satisfied, that the amount of loan would be liable to be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The pu…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ffect from 21.05.2007. 22. Now we will examine the above documents in the light of below mentioned case laws:- i. In the case of Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgement reported in (2021) 432 ITR 146 held as under:- “Under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is only where a loan is advanced by a company to a registered shareholder and the other conditions as set out in section 2(22)(e) are satisfied, that the amount of loan would be liable to be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The pu…