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)

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

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

ITA 553/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 :…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1385/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-15(2)(2) Vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Limited, 20/21, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Navnandavan Indl Estate, Road, Marine Lines, L.B.S Marg, Mulund Mumbai – 400 020 (West), Mumbai – 400 080 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcp1825G Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Malav ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

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

…s deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The aforesaid view has since been approved in several decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Delhi in the case of CIT Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom), CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del), National Travel Services (2012) 249 CTR (del) 540 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sarva Equity (P) Ltd, (2014) 111 DTR 207 (Karn) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS Madhur Housing and Development Co. 401 ITR 152(SC). Since the appellant in the present case is not a shareholder in the lender compa…

Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9595/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…or through its partners nor the assessee firm is a shareholder of the lending company and thus the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of t…

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6440/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…or through its partners nor the assessee firm is a shareholder of the lending company and thus the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of t…

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(4), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…or through its partners nor the assessee firm is a shareholder of the lending company and thus the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of t…

M/S. Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4446/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…or through its partners nor the assessee firm is a shareholder of the lending company and thus the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of t…

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)

…zance the judicial precedents relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Assessee in support of his contentions. (a) The decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ankitech Private Limited reported in [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Del.) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder. (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions India Limited reported in [2021] 276 Taxmann 312 (M…

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)

…s advance to its shareholder but to protect the business interest of the company. The sum of Rs.20,75,000 could not be treated as deemed dividend.” iv. In the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech P. Ltd., the Hon’ble Delhi High Courted in its judgementreported in (2012) 340 ITR 14 held as under::- “According to section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following conditions are to be satisfied : (i) the payer company must be a closely company ; (ii) it applies to any sum paid by way of loan or advance du the year to the following persons : (a) a shareholder holding at least 10 ofvoting power in the payer company ; (b…

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)

…s advance to its shareholder but to protect the business interest of the company. The sum of Rs.20,75,000 could not be treated as deemed dividend.” iv. In the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech P. Ltd., the Hon’ble Delhi High Courted in its judgementreported in (2012) 340 ITR 14 held as under::- “According to section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following conditions are to be satisfied : (i) the payer company must be a closely company ; (ii) it applies to any sum paid by way of loan or advance du the year to the following persons : (a) a shareholder holding at least 10 ofvoting power in the payer company ; (b…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Claridge Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4874/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, 12, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-1100011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0022B

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 145(3)

…ents: a. The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Madhur Housing & Development Co. reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 3961 of 2013 [401 ITR 152 (SC)] approved the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 14, wherein it has been held that an assessee who was not a shareholder of the company from which he received a loan or an advance cannot be treated as covered by the definition of the word 'dividend' as contained in section 2(22)(e). b. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCC Marketing Pvt. Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 350 wherein th…

The Reliance Motor Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2160/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 44A

…that this issue is now settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT 6 vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2017) 100 CCH 46 ISCC, wherein the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd., (2012) 340 ITR 14 affirmed. He narrated that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has concluded that, it is the definition of dividend which is enlarged by the deeming provision of section 2(22)(e) and not that of ‘shareholder’ and therefore a concern which is given loan or advance by a company cannot be treated as shareholder/member of the latter simply because a sharehol…

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income–tax, 118/120, 3rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCBO236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income–tax, 118/120, 3rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCL0236H Assessee by : Shri N.M. Porwal, Adv Revenue by : Shri Dr. Mahesh Ak…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tex vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/952/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…(vi) Deemed dividend On the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2 (22) (e) the tribunal discussed in detail the findings of the assessing officer CIT (A) as well as considered the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. vs. Ors., (2012) 240 ITR 14 (Del) inter alia held as under: “27. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before us at the time of hearing. From facts as noted by the AO in the impugned assessment order itself shows that M/s Appollo Traexim(P) Ltd. had made advances against booking of…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra!) -3 vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwe!L (P) Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/930/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…(vi) Deemed dividend On the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2 (22) (e) the tribunal discussed in detail the findings of the assessing officer CIT (A) as well as considered the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. vs. Ors., (2012) 240 ITR 14 (Del) inter alia held as under: “27. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before us at the time of hearing. From facts as noted by the AO in the impugned assessment order itself shows that M/s Appollo Traexim(P) Ltd. had made advances against booking of…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Central)-3 vs. Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/936/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…(vi) Deemed dividend On the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2 (22) (e) the tribunal discussed in detail the findings of the assessing officer CIT (A) as well as considered the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. vs. Ors., (2012) 240 ITR 14 (Del) inter alia held as under: “27. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before us at the time of hearing. From facts as noted by the AO in the impugned assessment order itself shows that M/s Appollo Traexim(P) Ltd. had made advances against booking of…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 935/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

Section 14ASection 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [PAN: AAACA2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by S…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 934/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

Section 14ASection 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [PAN: AAACA2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by S…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 933/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

Section 14ASection 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [PAN: AAACA2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by S…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2259/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2259/Ahd/2016 With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 D.C.I.T., M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Iscon House, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Nr. Citi Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

…re Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 ' (Bom.) The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s Daisy Packers (P) Ltd decided the issue in favour of the assessee, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) wherein it was held that if the assessee-company does not hold a share in other company from which it had received deposit then it cannot be treated With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 Asstt. Year 2007-08 4 to be a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. From the reading of the provisions of section 2(22)(e), it is seen that the provision i…

Rainbow Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, FCA &For Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 1745/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Vs ACIT, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Central Circle-23, Circus, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACR5368R ITA No. 1678/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ACIT, Vs M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught New Delhi Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT)…

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.

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

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Ltd, Mumbai

Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(4), New Delhi

M/S. Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

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

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

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Claridge Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

The Reliance Motor Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

Principal Commissioner of Income Tex vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra!) -3 vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwe!L (P) Ltd

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Central)-3 vs. Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Rainbow Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi