CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.

340 ITR 14High Court2012#459 most cited

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.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,842 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ankitech · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · non-shareholder · beneficial owner · registered shareholder · accumulated profits · closely held company

Also reported as

11 Taxmann.com 100199 Taxmann 3412011 SCC OnLine DEL 2213

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(2A)Section 14ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(2)(b)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 40(3)closely held companyshort deduction of tdssection 2(22)accumulated profitsdeemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)interest on interestshort deduction of taxbeneficial ownerrelated party transactionsection 194j

Judgments citing CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Royal Automobiles P Ltd, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 122/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ao.

Section 2(22)(e)

…ficial shareholder in its group concerns. Therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable. The AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and the cases of ‘CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd and ITA 121 & 122/Agra/2017 4 others’, reported in 340 ITR 14;‘CIT vs.Hotel Hilltop’, reported in 313 ITR 116 (Raj) and ‘CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.’ reported in 324 ITR 263 (Mum). Since the Assessing Officer was being not satisfied with the contention of the assessee and relied on the judgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ‘NCK Sons Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO’, Delhi in 102 ITD 311 and held th…

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Royal Automobiles P Ltd, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 121/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ao.

Section 2(22)(e)

…ficial shareholder in its group concerns. Therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable. The AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and the cases of ‘CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd and ITA 121 & 122/Agra/2017 4 others’, reported in 340 ITR 14;‘CIT vs.Hotel Hilltop’, reported in 313 ITR 116 (Raj) and ‘CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.’ reported in 324 ITR 263 (Mum). Since the Assessing Officer was being not satisfied with the contention of the assessee and relied on the judgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ‘NCK Sons Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO’, Delhi in 102 ITD 311 and held th…

V2 Retail Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

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

ITA 1174/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 32(1)(iia)

…1 V2 Retail Ltd., AY, 2010-11 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1174/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 V2 Retail Ltd. (PAN:AABCV5632P) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-10, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2017 For the Appellant Shri Nirav Sheth, AR For the Respondent Shri David Z. Chawngthu, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an a…

D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. M/S Prem Motors Pvt Ltd., Gwalior

The appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 327/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 40A(2)(b)

…ioner of Income Tax v.Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd – 118 ITD 1, decision of jurisdictional ITAT Agra Bench in the case of Atul Engineering Udyog – 133 ITD 1 and decision of various courts as under, have been cited by the appellant - CIT VsAnkitechPvt Ltd and others 340 ITR 14 (Del) CIT Vs AR Magnetics (P) Ltd (2014) 220 Taxman 209 (Del. HC) CIT Vs Daisy Packers (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 331 (Guj. HC) CIT VsSuram Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 327 (Raj. HC) ACIT Vs Britto Amusement P. Ltd (2014) 360 ITR 544 (Bom. HC) CIT Vs Hotel Hilltop – 313 ITR 116 (Raj) CIT Vs Universal Medicare P. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Mum) 5.3.3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Adi Bpo Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 980/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahudcit Adi Bpo Services Ltd. Circle – 1(2) N-49, Greater Kailash-I Room No. 368 Vs. New Delhi C. R. Building, Ip Estate New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aafca7116B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…does not make any difference, whether it is out of own funds or borrowed funds, the same is not covered within the ambit of deemed dividend. 5 The AR further placed reliance, on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14. This decision, being the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, is of paramount importance. I have gone through the facts of this decision in detail and the same is summarized with reference to the appellant’s case. (a) The facts in the case of the appellant are similar to the decision of the Hon’ble Court in Ankitech (P) Ltd. wherein the As…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Seasons Hotel Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2051/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Us, I.E. Seasons Hotels Pvt Ltd, Is Not A Shareholder In Inder Hotels Pvt Ltd. Yet, The Assessing Officer Treated Inter Corporate Loan From Inder Hotels Pvt Ltd, To The Extent Of Accumulated Profits Of Rs.99,50,273/-, As Deemed Dividend On The Ground That “The Assessee Company Has Received Loan From The Company Having Substantial Interest In The Company”. Even The Tribunal’S Decision In Favour Of The Assessee, On The Same Issue, Were Held To Be “Unacceptable”, As The Same Not Have Been Accepted By The Revenue Authorities. However, When Matter Travelled In Appeal Before The Cit(A), He Reversed The Action Of The Assessing Officer & Observed As Follows:- Dcit V/S Seasons Hotels Pvt Ltd Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Page 2 Of 3

Section 2(22)(e)

…g Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 5. We find that in CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 14, Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dealing with a situation in which the assessee, a company, received advances of Rs. 6.32 crores by way of book entry from Jacksons Generators Pvt. Ltd, a closely held company, and admittedly the shareholders having substantial interest in the assessee company were also having 10% of the voting power in Jacksons Genera…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & A Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.C.Dandey, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 198

…f the company. However, the AO is at liberty to take appropriate action in the hands of Shri Ashish Anand and Shri Amarpreet Anand. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 345 / 242 CTR 129 / (2011) Tax LR 629 / (2012) 340 ITR 14 has hold that Where assessee is not a shareholder of the paying company, the dividend is not 7 assessable' in its hands. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd.(2010) 324 ITR 263 held that profit in the form of dividend can be distributed to only shareholders of that company and such dividend cannot be given t…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.4511 to 4513/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 ACIT, M/s Salasar Developers, Circle-2, Ground Floor, Vrindavan, बनाम/ Thane Salasar Brijbhoomi, Temba Vs. Hospital Road, Bhayandar(W), Dist:-Thane-401101 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAKFS6465R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Virag H. Shah Shri H.N. Singh CIT-DR…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.4511 to 4513/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 ACIT, M/s Salasar Developers, Circle-2, Ground Floor, Vrindavan, बनाम/ Thane Salasar Brijbhoomi, Temba Vs. Hospital Road, Bhayandar(W), Dist:-Thane-401101 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAKFS6465R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Virag H. Shah Shri H.N. Singh CIT-DR…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.4511 to 4513/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 ACIT, M/s Salasar Developers, Circle-2, Ground Floor, Vrindavan, बनाम/ Thane Salasar Brijbhoomi, Temba Vs. Hospital Road, Bhayandar(W), Dist:-Thane-401101 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAKFS6465R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Virag H. Shah Shri H.N. Singh CIT-DR…

Late Ramesh Chand Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(4), Late Ramesh Chand Goyal Through L/H Smt. Manorma New Delhi Goyal, A-15/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aagpg7119L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.L. Dua, Adv. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(4), Late Ramesh Chand Goyal Through L/H Smt. Manorma New Delhi Goyal, A-15/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi PAN : AAGPG7119L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. M.L. Dua, Adv. Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing 11.01.2017 Date of pronouncement 15.02.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the legal heir of the assessee is directed against order dated 31/12/2013 of the learned Commissioner of Inc…

Balaji Universal Tradelink P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member ITA NO.2183/Mum/ 2013 Assessment Years:2004-05 M/s Balalji Universal vs DCIT, Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-40, C-71/75, 7th Floor, Room No.653, 6th Floor, Mittal Tower, Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AABCL0236H ITA NOs.2184 to 2186/Mum/2013 Assessment Years:2005-0…

Ms. Mitu Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5652/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11 Mitu Singh, Vs. Dcit, C-4/142, Sda, Circle-14(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ausps8598M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhagwan Jha, Ca Department By : Shri N.K. Bawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2016 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 16.7.2014 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.14,34,968/- Made By The Ao As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Act. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Of M/S Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., For The Assessment Year 2010-11, It Came To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Bhagwan Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bawal, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…t the end of the year stood at Rs.14,34,968/-, which was fully adjusted up to on 31.3.2013. Not convinced, the AO made addition u/s 2(22)(e). The ld.CIT(A), relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. & Others (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del), upheld the addition. 2 4. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee’s application for adjournment was rejected. Thereafter, Shri Bhagwan Jha, the authorised representative of the assessee, participated in the proceedings. On facts, it is noticed that the assessee received certain amount as advance…

ITO 20(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanjay B Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7317/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 7317/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 The Ito-20(3)(2), Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 546, Top Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Bhupendra Villa, Jam-E-Jamshed Road,Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 C.O. No. 91/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 7317/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, The Ito-20(3)(2), बनाम/ 546, Top Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bhupendra Villa, Mumbai-400 012 Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagps 5966H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri J.Saravanan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri M.Subramanian

For Appellant: Shri J.SaravananFor Respondent: Shri M.Subramanian
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 7317/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 The ITO-20(3)(2), Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 546, Top Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Bhupendra Villa, Jam-e-Jamshed Road,Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 C.O. No. 91/Mum/2016 (Arising out of I.TA No. 7317/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, The ITO-20(3)(2), बनाम/ 546, Top Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bhup…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Delhi-2 vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd

ITA/258/2016HC Delhi14 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 115Section 2

…plication of Section 2 (22) is that the assessee should be related to the other concern which advances the money or from which amount flows back to it as a shareholder. This position has now been affirmed by this court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14. The question of law framed does not arise in ITA Nos. 666/2016, 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016. The answer to the other questions of law framed has been repelled by the above order. 11. Consequently, ITA No. 666/2016 along with C.M.Nos.31882- 31883/2016 and ITA Nos. 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016 are d…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Delhi -2 vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd

ITA/666/2016HC Delhi14 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 115Section 2

…plication of Section 2 (22) is that the assessee should be related to the other concern which advances the money or from which amount flows back to it as a shareholder. This position has now been affirmed by this court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14. The question of law framed does not arise in ITA Nos. 666/2016, 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016. The answer to the other questions of law framed has been repelled by the above order. 11. Consequently, ITA No. 666/2016 along with C.M.Nos.31882- 31883/2016 and ITA Nos. 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016 are d…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Delhi-2 vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd

ITA/492/2016HC Delhi14 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 115Section 2

…plication of Section 2 (22) is that the assessee should be related to the other concern which advances the money or from which amount flows back to it as a shareholder. This position has now been affirmed by this court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14. The question of law framed does not arise in ITA Nos. 666/2016, 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016. The answer to the other questions of law framed has been repelled by the above order. 11. Consequently, ITA No. 666/2016 along with C.M.Nos.31882- 31883/2016 and ITA Nos. 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016 are d…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi -2 vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd

ITA/485/2016HC Delhi14 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 115Section 2

…plication of Section 2 (22) is that the assessee should be related to the other concern which advances the money or from which amount flows back to it as a shareholder. This position has now been affirmed by this court in CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14. The question of law framed does not arise in ITA Nos. 666/2016, 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016. The answer to the other questions of law framed has been repelled by the above order. 11. Consequently, ITA No. 666/2016 along with C.M.Nos.31882- 31883/2016 and ITA Nos. 257/2016, 258/2016, 261/2016, 485/2016 & 492/2016 are d…

M/S Birendra Chandra Saha, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-39, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…e hands of a non-shareholder.” 16. 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 Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt.Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del.). Since the Assessee in the present case is not a shareholder in the lender company, I am of the view that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee’s case”. 11. Here in this case, M/s. Birendra Chandra Saha admittedly is not a shareholder in M/s. Mascot Woodcraft Pvt. Ltd. and the loan was advanced to the asses…

D.C.I.T., Cen. Circle-VIII, Kolkata vs. M/S East End Silks (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 38/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, AR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…hands of a non-shareholder.” 7.6. 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 Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt.Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 9 M/s. East End Silks (P)Ltd.. A.Yr.2010-11 (Del.). Since the Assessee in the present case is not a shareholder in the lender company, we are of the view that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee’s case. 7.7. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the order of CIT(A) is just and proper and ca…