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.

Dr. Manju Dang, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6421/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 2(22)(e)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. Manju Dang, D-1, Hauz Khas, vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi (PAN-AASPD3534E) New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. Navin Dang, C-2/1, vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1), Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi. New Delhi.( PAN-AASPD3538J) (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2018 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Seema Devi Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6462/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…nature of imperest payment, the same could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the said Act, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. • Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 476 Deemed Dividend - nature of advance payment for a commercial purpose to the assessee company by its sister concern - held that - , the word ‘advance’ has to be read in conjunction with the word ‘loan’ - Usually attributes of a loan are that it involves positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money as loan: it gen…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Rajmal Lakhichand

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 832/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ans/advances. Hence, these closing balances of sales and purchases do not constitute deemed dividend. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Delhi); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393 (Bom.); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Lakshmikutty Narayanan, 105 ITD 558 (Cochin-Trib.); 3.5 The ld. AR further placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12-06-2017 to contend that trade advances in the nature of section 2(22)(e) of the Ac…

M/S. Rajmal Lakhichand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Prasidh Leasing Ltd

ITA/637/2004HC Delhi20 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 133ASection 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…the services to be rendered. Ipso facto, this would not convert a genuine transaction into a suspect one attracting deemed dividend clause. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Creative Dyeing and Printing Private Limited 2009 318 ITR 476; CIT v. Atul Engineering Udyog 2015 228 Taxmann 295 (All) and CIT v. Nagindas. M. Kapadia1997 (177) ITR 393. He also relied upon the circular issued by the CBDT which clarified that amounts advanced by a company through a concern and adjusted ITA 637/2004…

Vinod Kumar Mittal, Beawar vs. ITO, Ajmer

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

ITA 783/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR

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

…d before the ld. CIT(A) and reproduced in his order, particularly at page 6 & 7 2.8 Supporting Case Laws: For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- 8 Shri Vinod Kumar Mittal vs ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ajmer (1) CIT v/s Creative Dyeing & Printing P Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Del HC) it was held that “Amount advanced to the assessee company by another company having common directors not being a loan but an advance f or business transaction which is to be adjusted against the moneys payable by the latter to the assessee company in the subsequent years, same did not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under s…

Sri.K.M. Ashik, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…vances/loans. The arrangement between the assessee and the I.T.A. Nos.75-77/C/2016 company was merely for the sake of convenience arising out of business expediency. He relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Creative Dyeing and Printing (318 ITR 476) and Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra (338 ITR 538). 4. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR made further submissions which is as follows: “The addition of Rs.5,32,205/- as deemed dividend without considering that the appellant already had a credit balance of Rs.26,91,137.70 in the books against his name is unjustified. At…

Sri.K.M. Ashik, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

Sri.K.M. Ashik, Calicut vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

ITO, Ward-1, Kurnool vs. S.V. Mohan Reddy, Kurnool

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena

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

…g (P) Ltd. 184 Taxman 483 4. ITO Vs. Smt Gayatri 189 to 192 Chakraborty (Kolkata) 45 ITR(Trib) 197 5. CIT Vs. Raj Kumar (Delhi) 193 318 ITR 462 6. CIT Vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd 194 (Delhi) 318 ITR 173 7. CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing P 195 Ltd (Delhi) 318 ITR 476 8. CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 New Delhi dated 196 to 197 12/06/2017 9. Sarat Chand Bhavaraju Vs. ITO (Vishakhapatnam) 81 Taxman 323 10. CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Taxman 155(Delhi) 11. CIT V s. Atul Engineering U dyog (Allahabad) 228 Taxman 295 12. CIT Vs. Amrik Singh (Punj ab & Haryana) 231 Taxman 731 13. CIT Vs. F.Praveen (Madras) 220 CTR 639 14. case of…

Varusai Mohamed, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 662/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA

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

…ntee and collateral security. As per the ld. Authorised Representative this was clear from the Board resolution dated 30th June, 2008. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd 318 ITR 476 and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393. She thus argued that the advance received by ITA No.662 /Mds/2017. :- 6 -: the assessee from the Company stood outside the preview of Sec.2(22) (e) of the Act. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the aut…

Fasulunnisa, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 661/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA

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

…ntee and collateral security. As per the ld. Authorised Representative this was clear from the Board resolution dated 30th June, 2008. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd 318 ITR 476 and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393. She thus argued that the advance received by ITA No.661 /Mds/2017. :- 6 -: the assessee from the Company stood outside the preview of Sec.2(22) (e) of the Act. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the aut…

Mr.Hemanth Kumar Bothra, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 396/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Jason P.Boaz, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmy Karthik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Padmameenakshi, JCIT

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Jason P.Boaz, AM ITA No.396/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 Shri Hemanth Kumar Bothra The Asst.Commissioner of No.14, 7th Cross, Jal Bharat Vs. Income-tax, Nagar, Banaswadi Road, Central Circle 1(2) Bengaluru – 560 033. Bengaluru. PAN : AAAPH9863N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Lakshmy Karthik, CA Respondent by : Shri Padmameenakshi, JCIT Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2017 Date of Hearing : 23.10.2017 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is d…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Bhavnagar vs. Shri Yogendra Ratilal Sheth, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA

ITA 1791/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ए’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी एन.के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1791/Ahd/2014 & Cross Objection No.249/Ahd/2014 (in I.T.A. No.1791/Ahd/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) ACIT, Shri Yogendra Ratilal बनाम/ Circle – 2, Sheth, Vs. Bhavnagar Prop: of Shah Construction Co., Vora Bazar, Maniyar Street, Bhavnagar – 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AHGPS 8315 P .. (अपी…

Ravindra R. Fotedar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6778/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2010 – 2011 Ravindra R Fotedar Acit 10(2) 7 Bharat Tirth Society, Mumbai Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan Aacpf1616R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar

Section 2(22)(e)

…ion entered into by the assessee could not be treated as “loans” or “advances” within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). This decision was followed by the Delhi High 15 Shri Ravindra R Fotedar Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Delhi). In this case, an advance by assessee, engaged in the business of a dyeing and printing of cloth to a sister concern having an ancillary unit of both the assessee and sister company striving for export and made international standard was not regarded to be deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Rajasthan High Court also has taken the s…

Bharat Bir Mohindra, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 462/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 462/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gangadhara Sastry, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. P. Suresh Rao, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…appellant. Thus, the facts of the assessee's case being totally different from that of CIT vs. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462, the same is not applicable. ITA No.462/Mds/2013. :- 7 -: Assessee also placed reliance in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing 318 ITR 476. The High Court in this case, more or less, endorsed the view taken by it earlier in CIT vs. Rajkumar(supra). In the assessee's case, the transaction under consideration is definitely not a "business transaction" and it does not result in any benefit to the company making payment, therefore this case does not support the case of the assessee in…

N.S.Nagarajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 154/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

…s payable by the latter to the assessee. The same did not fall within the definition of the deemed dividend under Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act as held by various Courts; example CIT vs. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Delhi High Court), CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing 318 ITR 476. However, the burden is on the assessee to prove that the transaction relating to the loan received from M/s.Impel Healthcare P Ltd., is on account of business transaction is to be established by the assessee by producing cogent evidence. In the present case, though the assessee made a plea before us that it is on account of business transactio…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Roop Bansal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5672/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…e not disputed in the remand report. 8.14 Following judicial pronouncements support the appellant’s case that a commercial transaction is not hit by provisions of section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961: (i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del), (ii) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 376 (Del) (m) CIT vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462(Del), (iv) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538(Cal), and (v) ACIT Vs. Sunil Chopra 002 ITR (Trib.) 469 (Del.) 8.15 Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case as discussed above, material available on record,…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Roop Bansal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

D. P. Vora Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5961/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal and Shri Jitendra Singh

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

…ion can only be made in the hands of registered shareholder and not the assessee who is not a registered shareholder of the company. In defence of his argument, the ld. AR relied on the following decisions : i) CIT V/s Creative Dyeing and Printing P Ltd(2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del); ii) CIT V/s Gopal Clothing Co.P.Ltd (2013) 350 ITR 67 (Delhi); iii) CIT V/s Impact Containers P Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom). The ld. AR finally submitted that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts the issue was now squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and therefor…