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

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.?

202 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (340 ITR 14), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(22)(e), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(2A), Section 14A.

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (340 ITR 14)

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)

…"shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" used in sec 2(22)(e). The interpretation of the said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the…

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)

…"shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" used in sec 2(22)(e). The interpretation of the said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the…

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)

…"shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" used in sec 2(22)(e). The interpretation of the said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the…

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)

…"shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" used in sec 2(22)(e). The interpretation of the said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the…

Apeejay Surrendre Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 988/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.987 & 988/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Apeejay Surrendra Management DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata. Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. (PAN: AADCA5000A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Respondent by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR Hearing concluded on : 13.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these captioned appeals fi…

Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.987 & 988/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Apeejay Surrendra Management DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata. Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. (PAN: AADCA5000A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Respondent by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR Hearing concluded on : 13.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these captioned appeals fi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 18 vs. M/S Wig Investment

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

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

…irm; however, the same is chargeable to tax in the hands of the shareholders. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB), CIT Vs. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar (1977) 109 ITR 508 (Mad) and Ankitech P. Ltd, 340 ITR 14 (Del). Accordingly, the deemed dividend of Rs.21,08,38,530/- is hereby deleted. Consequential relief shall be given by the AO. The AO may consider taking remedial action as per law in assessing the deemed dividend of Rs.21,08,38,530/- in relevant AY in the hands of registered & beneficial shareholders; Mr. Pradeep Wig and Mrs. Neera Wig. In vi…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1335/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1333 to 1335/DEL/2021 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16] DCIT, Central Circle, M/s Solitaire Realinfra Private Room No.229, 02nd Floor, Limited, CGO-1, Ghaziabad, Vs Sector-25, Jaypee Green Sport City Uttar Pradesh-201002 In front of Buddha Circuit Noida, Uttar Pradesh PAN-AACCH4156K Revenue Assessee Revenue by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Date of Hearing 06.12.2023 Da…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1334/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1333 to 1335/DEL/2021 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16] DCIT, Central Circle, M/s Solitaire Realinfra Private Room No.229, 02nd Floor, Limited, CGO-1, Ghaziabad, Vs Sector-25, Jaypee Green Sport City Uttar Pradesh-201002 In front of Buddha Circuit Noida, Uttar Pradesh PAN-AACCH4156K Revenue Assessee Revenue by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Date of Hearing 06.12.2023 Da…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1333/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1333 to 1335/DEL/2021 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16] DCIT, Central Circle, M/s Solitaire Realinfra Private Room No.229, 02nd Floor, Limited, CGO-1, Ghaziabad, Vs Sector-25, Jaypee Green Sport City Uttar Pradesh-201002 In front of Buddha Circuit Noida, Uttar Pradesh PAN-AACCH4156K Revenue Assessee Revenue by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Date of Hearing 06.12.2023 Da…

Pawa International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 2723/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawa International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit M-102, Greater Kailash Part- Circle-19 (2) I, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacp6108P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 13.09.2023 By Nfac, Delhi.

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…s below. On perusal of the chart explaining the share holding pattern as exhibited elsewhere it can be seen that the assessee is not a share holder in the impugned company. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Ankitech Private Limited 340 ITR 14 has clearly held that legal fiction created u/s. 2 (22)(e) enlarges definition of dividend only and legal fiction is not to be extended further for broadening concept of share holders. This has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company 401 ITR 152. 10. Respectfully following the ratio laiddown…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…s:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…s:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…s:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…s:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (…

Global Business Conexxtions Pvt.Ltd., Madhya Pradesh vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), Mumbai

ITA 720/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…. 13 13. Shri Ujjwal A. Rana, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued before us that a judgment had been delivered by the very Division Bench in another case CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd.[2011] 199 Taxman 341/11 taxmann.com 100/[2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi). The same Division Bench had arrived at a conclusion, following other judgments of other Courts and Tribunals, that the expression "shareholder" would continue to mean a registered shareholder even after the amendment, and that, this being the case, it is clear that the impugned judgment has taken an about turn and has sought to distinguis…

Saj Industries Pvt. Ltd., [Now, Saj Food Products (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2191/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Saj Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Now Saj Food Products P Ltd)..........….…… Appellant 5/1, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. [Pan: Aafcs4575E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,54,27,000/- Made By The A.O. By Wrongly Treating The Interest Free Unsecured Loan/ Advance Received By The Assessee Company From M/S A.M. Marketing Ltd. As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. For That, Without Prejudice To Ground No. 1, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The A.O. Had Wrongly Taken The

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…be taxed and not the recipient company. There are two other authorities, of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263/190 Taxman 144 and of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14/[2011] 199 Taxman 341/11 taxmann.com 100 laying down this proposition or principle of Law. 10. Mr. Khaitan submits that three situations are conceived in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act to expand the meaning of the term "Dividend" beyond what is normally understood. These are :— (i) Any payment by a company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder (…

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Automotives Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam Mp

ITA 555/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, M/s. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: AANCS 1007 M Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ujjain […

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Sagar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 569/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 553 & 554/Ind/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant M/s. Shirani Motors Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Ratlam Vs 29, Shirani Pura, Ratlam (M.P.) PAN: AAJCS2531G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant M/s. Sagar Commissioner of Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Ratlam Vs Mitra Niwas Road, Ratlam(M.P.) PAN: AAHCS6984R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented :…

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 554/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 553 & 554/Ind/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant M/s. Shirani Motors Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Ratlam Vs 29, Shirani Pura, Ratlam (M.P.) PAN: AAJCS2531G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant M/s. Sagar Commissioner of Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Ratlam Vs Mitra Niwas Road, Ratlam(M.P.) PAN: AAHCS6984R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented :…

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.

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

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

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

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

Apeejay Surrendre Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 18 vs. M/S Wig Investment

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

Pawa International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

Global Business Conexxtions Pvt.Ltd., Madhya Pradesh vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), Mumbai

Saj Industries Pvt. Ltd., [Now, Saj Food Products (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Automotives Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam Mp

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Sagar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)