CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.

318 ITR 476High Court2009#999 most cited

What is CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Genuine trade advances or amounts advanced for bona fide business transactions, driven by commercial expediency, do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

109

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · trade advances · commercial expediency · business transactions · definition of dividend · inter-company advances · Section 115-O · Section 115Q

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 115-OSection 115QSection 132Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115qaccumulated profitsdeemed dividendsection 2(22)section 2(22)(e)dividend distribution taxbeneficial ownerbusiness expediencystatement under section 132(4)commercial expediencyreason to believesection 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN GOVIND APTE, PUNE

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 54F

…30-8- 2012 insofar as it contains the finding against the appellant is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 9.5 Ld.AR for the Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd., [2009] 318 ITR 476 wherein vide order dated 22.09.2009 Hon’ble High Court has held as under : “12. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts advanced for business transaction between the parties, namely, the assessee-company and M/s.Pee Empro Exports (P.) Ltd. was not such to fall within the definition of deemed dividend under sec…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…that the transactions are in the nature of trading transactions and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) ltd 318 ITR 476 (Delhi). The said contention was rejected by the AO and proceeded to hold that the transaction is in the nature of deemed dividend and taxed the same to the extent of accumulated profit available in hands of the lender companies. However, the addition was made under the protective basis as the substantive addition was made in the case of firm - N…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…that the transactions are in the nature of trading transactions and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) ltd 318 ITR 476 (Delhi). The said contention was rejected by the AO and proceeded to hold that the transaction is in the nature of deemed dividend and taxed the same to the extent of accumulated profit available in hands of the lender companies. However, the addition was made under the protective basis as the substantive addition was made in the case of firm - N…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…that the transactions are in the nature of trading transactions and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) ltd 318 ITR 476 (Delhi). The said contention was rejected by the AO and proceeded to hold that the transaction is in the nature of deemed dividend and taxed the same to the extent of accumulated profit available in hands of the lender companies. However, the addition was made under the protective basis as the substantive addition was made in the case of firm - N…

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…ion between the assessee-company and the company P was not such to fall within the definition of the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). [Para 12]” 20. Similar view has been expressed by various Courts in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay), JamunaVernekarVs CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka),CIT Vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H),and CIT VsAtul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahaba…

GAURAV BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-22(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 3475/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1St Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeopb3197D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3475/Del/2019, For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi’S As Many Orders Dated 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 In Case Nos. 10589, 10590 & 10591, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1st Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEOPB3197D Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3…

GAURAV BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-22(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 3474/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1St Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeopb3197D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3475/Del/2019, For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi’S As Many Orders Dated 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 In Case Nos. 10589, 10590 & 10591, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1st Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEOPB3197D Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3…

GAURAV BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-22(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 3473/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1St Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeopb3197D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3475/Del/2019, For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi’S As Many Orders Dated 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 In Case Nos. 10589, 10590 & 10591, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1st Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEOPB3197D Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. AVINASH KNATILAL JAIN, JALGAON

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

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

…n to an advantage conferred upon the company by the share holder does not. On facts, as the advance was in lieu of the company being permitted to mortgage the assessee's flat, it was not "gratuitous" and so not assessable as "deemed dividend" (Creative Dyeing 318 ITR 476 (Del) & Nagindas Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom) followed)." 5.4 Hence, in view of the case laws relied upon by the appellant, the addition of Rs. 3,27,81,102/- made by the AO by invoking provisions of s. 2(22)(e) is not tenable in the eyes of law. As the transactions in the instant case are in the nature of regular trading transactions entered into in…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI, AGRA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 137/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ya Bank, if decision had been taken to give advance to the assessee, such decision was not to give gratuitous advance to its share holder but to protect the business interest of the company. 7.10 In case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476, Hon'ble Delhi High Court decided the issue on same lines and when Revenue went in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18197 of 2010 was dismissed. Further in case of CIT vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided the issue in favor of the appellant. Similar decisions have…

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)

…nvoked. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents placed at page 9 of the written submissions: 1) CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 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]…

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
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)

…ed. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial\nprecedents placed at page 9 of the written submissions:\n1) CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra\nPradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79).\n2) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476\n(Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 80-82)\n3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi)\n(PB-I: Pg 83)\n4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88).\n5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB-\nI: Pg 89)\n6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB-\nI: Pg 90-91)\n7) CIT vs. Amrik Sin…

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)

…voked. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents placed at page 9 of the written submissions: 1) CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 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]…

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)

…voked. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents placed at page 9 of the written submissions: 1) CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 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]…

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

…thi vs DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 95 (Delhi ITAT), DCIT vs Atul Engineering Udyog (2011) 10 taxmann.com 162 (Agra ITAT), CIT vs Atul Engineering Udyog (2011) 10 taxmann.com 162 (2014) 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allhabad HC), CIT vs Creative Dyeing & Printing (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…

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)

…voked. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents placed at page 9 of the written submissions: 1) CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 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]…

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)

…voked. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents placed at page 9 of the written submissions: 1) CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 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]…

HAREENDRAN NAIR JANARDHANAN NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 810/COCH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Arti, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

…sment as upheld in the CIT(A) findings. Learned counsel’s only case is that the assessee and the said company had been having a current running account containing various contra entries and therefore, case law(s) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) & Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal); already goes against the department on the very issue as such sum(s) could not be terms as either loans or advances; as the case may be. 6. The Revenue on the other hand has chosen to place strong reliance on the impugned addition made in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situa…

HAREENDRAN NAIR JANARDHANAN NAIR ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , TRIVANDRUM

ITA 809/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Arti, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

…sment as upheld in the CIT(A) findings. Learned counsel’s only case is that the assessee and the said company had been having a current running account containing various contra entries and therefore, case law(s) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) & Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal); already goes against the department on the very issue as such sum(s) could not be terms as either loans or advances; as the case may be. 6. The Revenue on the other hand has chosen to place strong reliance on the impugned addition made in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situa…

HAREENDRAN NAIR JANARDHANAN NAIR ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM , THIRUVANATHAPURAM

ITA 808/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Arti, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

…sment as upheld in the CIT(A) findings. Learned counsel’s only case is that the assessee and the said company had been having a current running account containing various contra entries and therefore, case law(s) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) & Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal); already goes against the department on the very issue as such sum(s) could not be terms as either loans or advances; as the case may be. 6. The Revenue on the other hand has chosen to place strong reliance on the impugned addition made in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situa…

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6