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, C.C.-Xvi, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eastern Mineral & Trading Agency, Asansol

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and corresponding cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as under:-

ITA 907/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘A’BENCH, KOLKATA Before: Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member IT(SS)A Nos.108,109 & 110/Kol/2011 A.Ys 2004-05, ’05-06 & ’06-07 ITA Nos.907-908/Kol/2010 A.Ys 2004-05 & ’05-06 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Eastern Minerals Income Tax, CC-XVI, & Trading Agency Kolkata PAN: AAAFE7051M (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O Nos.66 & 67/Kol/2010 [ arising out of ITA Nos. 907 & 908/kol/2010 A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06] M/s. Eastern Minerals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of & Trading Agency Income Tax, CC-XVI, Kolkata (Cross Objector/Assessee)…

Libra (Agencies ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 81/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash P. Gaikwad

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No. 81/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण वष" M/s. Libra (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT-1(2) 805/806, Hallmark Business Plaza Mumbai. Guru Nanak Hospital Road, Bandra (E) Vs. Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACL 0…

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…he assessee for keeping his property as mortgage on behalf of the company to reap the benefit of loan as deemed dividend within the meaning of s. 2(22)(e).—CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P) Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (Del) 250 : (2009) 30 DTR (Del) 143 : (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del) and CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia (1989) 75 CTR (Bom) 161 : (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom) relied on. Loan advanced by company to shareholder in compensation of shareholder mortgaging his immovable property for enabling company to secure bank loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e).” COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CREATIVE DYE…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5194/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negia C I T – 25(2) Shri Mahesh K. Shah Room No. 108, 1St Floor B-15, Paras Darshan C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (East) B.K.C., Bandra (East) Mumbai 400066 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaips6406N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 69C

…d. 7. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, which is again based on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ICT v/s Creative Dying 11 Shri Mahesh K. Shah and Printing Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Nagin Das M. Kapaida, [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bom.), we affirm the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, grounds raised by the Department are dismissed.” 5.3.2 In view of the legal and factual matrix, being identical to those in A.Y. 2009-10 in the a…

Shri Hemant Jain, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

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

ITA 632/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 43Section 73

…e and therefore, such transaction cannot be held as falling within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on following decision in support of his proposition. i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 476(Del), ii) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476(Del),iii) CIT vs. Vikram Ved (2014) 367 ITR 365(Bom), iv) Mukundray K shah vs. CIT (2005) 277 ITR 128(Kol), v) CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & ors (2011) 242 CTR 1029(Del). , vi) Jamu V Sungand vs. DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ (Mum) 1034 vii) DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers (2007) 106 TTJ (Chd) 25…

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 5722/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ITA NOS. 5722/DEL/2011 & 996/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5722/DEL/2011 (AY. 2008-09) AND I.T.A. NO. 996/DEL/2014 (AY 2008-09) SH. PRADEEP SINGH, ACIT, RANGE-24, A-13A, GREEN PARK MAIN, VS. NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 016 (PAN: ABIPS8126Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & Sh. RP Mall, Adv. Department by : Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10-08-2016 Date of Order : 19-08-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Assessee has filed these two Appea…

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Shri Anuj Gupta, Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessee are partly allowed

ITA 698/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Anuj Gupta, Vs. Ito, B-106, Sector-2, Ward-19(3), Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpg2385D Assessment Year: 2006-07 Pankaj Gupta, Vs. Ito, B-106, Sector-2, Ward-19(3), Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aadpg5224D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Dash, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 Order The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.12.2014 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By Both The Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Dash, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act:- i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del); ii) Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT, ITA No.219 of 2003 (Kolkata High Court); iii) CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 187 ITR 1 (Bom) and iv) CIT vs. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar, 83 ITR 170 (SC) 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the side…

M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)

Gurpreet Singh Chawla, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1714/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishigurpreet Singh Chawla, Ito, 341, Joshi Road, Ward-13(4), Vs. Karol Bagh, New Delhi, New Delhi Pan:Aaapc2763N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasenthan, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)

…hare holder exceeding specific percentage, then only, the provisions the section 2(2)(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 Vs. Creative Dying and Printing Pvt. Ltd [318 ITR 476]. No other contrary decisions were brought to our notice by the ld DR. In view of the above finding we reverse the finding of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1123551/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. We also clarify that in the present appeal the Page 7 of 7 accumulated profit are to the tune of only Rs. 1123551/- and…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S Bonie Apparels (P) Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1295/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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

…rom the loan transaction and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted. For this conclusion, the ld. CIT(Appeals) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Limited reported in 318 ITR 476 and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra reported in 338 ITR 538. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. D.R. has…

M/S. U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2979/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiu. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Range-18, Vs. 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Zamrudpur, Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit, U.K.Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., Range-18, 19, Dda Commercial Complex, Vs. Room No.211A, Zamrudpur, C.R.Building Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Anil Bhalla, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…in he upheld the action of AO. Therefore assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Heard the rival contentions. The ld AR relied on the contention raised before learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and has also paced reliance on the decision of 318 ITR 462, 318 ITR 476, 313 ITR 538 of jurisdictional High Court wherein it is held that business advance cannot be taxed as deemed dividend. Against the ld AR relied on the orders of lower authorities. We have carefully considered the rival contention. Before us the assessee has submitted that the transactions with this parties are running account as loan and there is…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Dina Sudhir Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4184/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Uday B JakkeFor Respondent: Dr.P.Daniel

Section 2(22)(e)

…Supreme Court, in our view, will have no applicability to the facts of the instant case.” 10. The decision rendered in the case of Rajkumar (supra) was followed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Princint P Ltd (2009)(318 ITR 476). In the said case, an advance was 8 given to the said assessee by the sister concern, which held 50% of the share holding in the assessee concern for modernization project. The advance so given was adjusted against the dues for job work to be done by the assessee. The Delhi High Court held that it was a business transaction and the advance was n…

Vivek I Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3598/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3598/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ Shri Vivek I Gupta, The Ito-12(2)(2), D/21, Dhanraj Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Csm Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepg 1004E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :09.12.2015

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar

Section 2(22)(e)

…ITR 462 wherein it was held that the trade advances given to the assessee by the company could not be treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Once again, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 has reiterated what has been held in the case of Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Raj Kumar (supra). In this case also, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue holding that the amount advanced for business transaction between the assessee company and its sister concern did not fall within the definition of deemed dividend u/s.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, New Delhi

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

ITA 2917/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), N-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aagpg8032N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Iv, New Delhi, Dated 27.02.2013, Passed For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. Whether The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 53,29,843/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Ignoring The Fact That The Advances Had Not Been Made In The Ordinary Course Of Business Expediency & The Assessee Had Been Regularly Repaying The Amount Received From The Company. Ii. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary From The Company, Namely, M/S A.K.G. Industries

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv

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

…spect of the debit balance arising in the account of the employee. My above view also gets support from the judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Del) and CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del.) whereby the Delhi High Court has held that the amount received by the assessee as an advance against future supply was a trade advance and not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, I hold that the amount received by the appellant is advance against future salaries was in the normal course of business…

ITO, Chennai vs. Evershine Timber International P Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2139/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2138 & 2139/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, M/S Evershine Timber Company Ward – Ii(1), V. International Ltd., Chennai - 600 034. No.54, Ramasamy Street, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. Pan : Aabce 4201 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: None

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

…d factual conclusion. Therefore, the lower appellate findings 7 I.T.A. Nos.2138 & 2139/Mds/2014 categorizing the impugned loans as business advances have to be sustained. It has been held in case law CIT v. Creative Dyeing and Printing Private Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del), that business advances cannot be treated as deemed dividends u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Revenue does not quote any case laws to the contrary. This makes us to affirm the findings under challenge. The Revenue’s ground is rejected. I.T.A. No.2138/Mds/2014 is dismissed. 7. Same order to follow in I.T.A. No. 2139/Mds/2014 appeal. 8. The Re…

ITO, Chennai vs. Evershine Timber International P Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2138/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2015AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: None

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Smt. Reeta Lankalingam, Chennai

ITA 2242/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Dr. Anitha Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rangaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी बी.आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी एस. एस. गोदारा, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.19 to 25/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-2006 to 2011-2012) Shri. Lankalingam Murugesu, The Deputy Commissioner of Income No.12 & 13, Kothari Road, Vs. Tax, Nungambakkam Central Circle III (2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [PAN :AACPL0314N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2242/Mds/20…

CIT vs. International Land Development Pvt Ltd

ITA/1296/2011HC Delhi02 Feb 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 20v

…o/o $-3&4 * ilY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + tTA 1296120rl & ITA r297l20lr CIT ..... APPellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Adv. VETSUS INTERNATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER 02.02.2012 These two appeals by the Revenue impugn a common order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of IWs. International Land Development Pvt. Ltd. The appeals relate to assessment year 2005-06 and 2007-08. The Assessing Officer h…