How many judgments cite CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.?

119 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. (318 ITR 476), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. 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 115-O, Section 115Q.

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.

318 ITR 476High Court2009#887 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.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 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 147 Section 148 Section 115-O Section 115Q Section 132 Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115q accumulated profits deemed dividend section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)dividend distribution tax beneficial owner business expediency statement under section 132(4)commercial expediency reason to believe section 132(4)

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

DCIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6168/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 40

…also held that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT v. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Del). It was held therein as under: “The counsel for the appellant has very strenuously urged that neither the Tribunal nor the judgment of this Court in Rajkumar's case(supra) deals with that part of the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) which states that deemed dividend does not include an advance or loan made to a sharehold…

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…sian Business Connections (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT - 101 Taxmann.com 455, relying on the various decisions at Paras 36, 37 held at Para 39, which is extracted below; “36. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. 120091 184 taxmann.com 483/318 ITR 476 (Delhi) Hon’ble High Court held “that the section 2(22)(e) can be applied to ‘loans or advances’ simplicitor and not to those transaction carried out in the course of business as such. In the course of carrying of business transaction between the company and the stockholder the company may be required to give advance in mutual interest. There is…

Smt Jamuna Vernekar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

ITA/43/2013HC Karnataka10 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260

…rofits. However, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING P. LTD.' (2009) 318 ITR 476 (DELHI), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. 7 AMBASSADOR TRAVELS P. LTD.' (2009) 318 ITR 376 (DELHI), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. RAJ KUMAR' (2009) 318 ITR 462 (DELHI), 'PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' (2011) 338 ITR 538 (CAL), 'PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. VIKAS OBEROI' (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 261…

A.C.I.T., Circle-43, Kolkata vs. Shri Ramesh Chandra Kataria, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 266/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…M/s Suman Jeweller Pvt. Ltd. was in the nature of trade advance and cannot be termed as advance as envisaged u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act and, therefore, relying on the ratio-decidendi decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing 318 ITR 476 (Del.) [the revenue appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed] and the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Amrik Singh 231 Taxman we find that on the facts discussed by the Ld. CIT(A), and noted by us, we agree that the advance given by M/s Rohit Jeweller to M/s 8 Ramesh Chandra Kataria AY 2015-16…

Exotica Housing & Infrstructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(4), New Delhi

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R

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

…ns and advances as contemplated under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” When subsequent year’s appeals was considered by the Tribunal, the assessee relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del.), CIT vs., Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Del.), CIT vs., Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) in which it was held that “the amounts advanced for business transaction will not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under secti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Futurz Next Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2396/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1383/Del/2017 [by Assessee] And ITA No. 2396/Del/2017 [by Department] (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. CIT, M/s Futurz Next Services Central Circle-29, Vs. (Private) Limited, New Delhi FA - 45, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi – 110 027. PAN: AABCJ7692K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms Ashima Neb Sr DR Mr. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ved Jain Advocate Shri Rishabh Jain CA Shri Ashish Goel, C. A.; Date of Hearing 31/10/2019 and 16/03/…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Yashovardhan Tyagi, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2880/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2880/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ito Vs Sh. Yashovardhan Tyagi, Ward-34(3), 56, Madhya Marg, Dlf, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Gurgaon, Delhi-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt0403G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…ed from the theatre owner to the distributor of the films. It is a pure commercial transaction between the movie theatre and the distributor. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 wherein it has been held that amounts advanced to the assessee by another company for the business purpose ITA Nos. 2880 & 2439/Del/2016 6 Yashovardhan Tyagi wherein both the entities are having common Directors and if it is in the nature of a commercial transactions, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. We find tha…

Yashovardhan Tyagi, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

ACIT, Non Corp CIT 7(1), Chennai vs. Jethanand Thakur Bakshani, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is

ITA 883/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate

Section 2(22)(e)Section 24

…t of the company. The sum of 20,75,000/- could not be treated as deemed dividend. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing P. Ltd. Reported as 318 ITR 476(Del). In the instant case also the assessee was allowed to withdraw funds from the company as per requirement for personal purposes against the personal guarantee and the collateral security given by her to facilitate her availing of credit facility of the company. It is a well settled law that loan or advance given to a shareholder by a company…

Manoj Mittal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4596/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. C.S.Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 50Section 50CSection 69

…lar No 19/2017 dated 12.06.2017 11. Copy of Judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Sethi ITA 569/2009 Delhi High 12. Copy of Judgement in the case of ACIT Vs. Seema Devi Bansal 13. Copy of Judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd. 318 ITR 476(Del) Delhi High Court 14. Copy of Judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Arvind Kumar Jain 205 Taxman 44(Del) Delhi High Court 15. Copy of Judgement in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT 38 DTR (A.T) 19 ITAT Pune 16. Copy of Judgement in the case of Sita Bai Khetan Vs. ITO 50 ITR (Trib) 196 ITATJaipur 17. Copy of Judgement in the case of John Fo…

Pasl Windtech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/AHD/2017[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 2302 & 2366/AHD/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- VS Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCA 3022G Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Respondent by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of…

Sh. Kabul Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5396/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 5396/Del/2014 (A.Y – 2011-12) Kabul Chawla, Vs Acit, 7-A, Amrita Shegill Marg, Central Circle – 23, New Delhi-110 011. New Delhi (Pan : Aafpc 6879 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Bhagwani, C.A. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2020 Order

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5396/DEL/2014 (A.Y – 2011-12) Kabul Chawla, Vs ACIT, 7-A, Amrita Shegill Marg, Central Circle – 23, New Delhi-110 011. New Delhi (PAN : AAFPC 6879 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Ajay Bhagwani, C.A. Respondent by Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.01.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-XXXIII…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ravi Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4930/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…holder exceeding specific percentage, then only, the provisions the section 2(22)(e) of the act comes into play. The above view further gets support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT 7s. Creative Dying and Printing Pvt. Ltd. [318 ITR 476]. No other contrary decisions were brought to our notice by the Id. DR. In view of the above finding we reverse the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,23,551/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. We also clarify that in the present appeal the accumulated profit are to the tune of only Rs.11,23,551/- and the…

Sri Bhaskar Raju, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1828/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1828 & 1829/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2011-12 Sri S.K Bhaskar Raju, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, #97, 8th Cross, RMV Extension, Range-9, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru. [ITA No.1829/Bang/2016] Bengaluru-560 080. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-9(1), PAN – ABLPB 3852 H Bengaluru. [ITA No.1828/Bang/2016] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hear…

Asian Business Conection Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT - 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

…deemed dividend. In this regard, the extract of provisions of section 2(22)(e ) of the Act are reproduced below: 12. In support of its contention Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on following judgments; 1. CIT v Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. [2009] 184 Taxmann 483 (Delhi) (HC) : Asian Business Connection Private Limited 2. Intention of section 2(22)(e) as explained in CIT v. Mukundray Shah[2007] 160 Taxmann 276 (SC) : 3. CIT v Gayatri Chakraborty [2018] 94 taxmann.com 244 (Calcutta) (HC) 4. Chadrasekhar Maruti v ACIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 239 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. M. Amareswara Rao v DCIT [2016] 67 taxm…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Sajid S. Nadiadwala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1151/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sajid S. Nadiadwala, Ocean View, J.P. Road, Vs. Acit-11(1), Mumbai Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai [Pan : Aagps5417D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, DRFor Respondent: Shri Hiro Rai, AR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sajid S. Nadiadwala, Ocean View, J.P. Road, Vs. ACIT-11(1), Mumbai Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai [PAN : AAGPS5417D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR Respondent by : Shri Hiro Rai, AR Date of Hearing : 10-05-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24-06-2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against an order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dated 16.11.20…

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2405/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 31F, Ramkrishna Samadhi Ward-45(4), 3, V/S. Road, Kolkata-700054 Government Place [Pan No.Acspj 6607 N] (West), Kolkata-700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18.07.2017 Passed In Case No.118/Cit(A)-13/W-44(1)/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Canvassed In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Making Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹6,32,449/- In His Hands. The Cit(A);S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “Decision:- 6. I Have Gone Through The Contention Of The Assessee, The Order Passed By The Ao & The Submissions Made By The Appellant. The Decision Of This Appeal Is Given As Under:- 6.1. In This Case The Only Issue Relates To The Addition Of Rs.6,33,449/- As A Deemed Evident Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T Act. While Making Addition The Ao Found That ''During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding M/S. Benchmark Developers Pvt. Ltd For The A. Y 2009-10, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Taken Loan From M/S. Benchmark Developers Pvt. Ltd. Amounting To Rs. 6,60,000/- In Which He Is One Of The Director & Holds About 35% Of

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

…No.2405/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Santosh Kr. Jaiswal V. ITO Wd-45(4), Kol. Page 6 The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. reported as 318 ITR 476(Del) In the instant case also the assessee was allowed to withdraw funds from the company as per requirement for personal purposes against the personal guarantee and the collateral security given by her to facilitate her availing of credit facility of the company. It is a well settled law that loan or advance given to a shareholder by a company i…

DCIT Cir-1(1), Jamshedpur vs. Shri Anil Roy, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Partha Sarathi Paul, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 2(22)

…e through the order of the learned AO as well as the written submission made by the appellant. The assesse in his submission before the AO relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Painting Pvt. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 476(Delhi) against which revenues special leave petition (SLP) in Civil No. 18197 of 2010 was dismissed. In this case it is held that payment made by the company for sale consideration as part performance of agreement cannot be said deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)( e) of the IT Act, 1961. The assesse also relied on similar decisio…

Praveen Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 51(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 5066/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.5066/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Shri Praveen Bajaj, 1001, Sewak Chamber-1, The ACIT, 2099/38, Naiwala, Karol vs. Circle-51(1), Bagh, New Delhi – 110005. New Delhi. PAN AAHPB7785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate For Assessee : & Shri Shyam Sunder, A.R. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Learned CIT(A)-17, New Delhi dated 27th Apr…

Madhulika Makkar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6938/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Madhulika Makkar, Vs. Dcit, 5/5 West Patel Nagar, Circle 10(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aavpm9680M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Rohtagi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)

…The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, relying on the following decisions submitted that these are trade advances and, therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable:- (i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Del); (iii) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT, 338 ITR 538 (Cal); (iv) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Del); and (v) CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain, 18 taxmann.com 132 (Del). Referring to CBDT Circular No.19/2017 dated 12th June, 2017, he submitted 6. that the CBDT in the said Circular has h…