CIT v. HK Mittal

219 ITR 420High Court1996#12416 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

closely held companysection 47accumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)beneficial ownerdirect tax vivad se vishwasliable to taxsection 56escapement of incomevivad se vishwas

Judgments citing CIT v. HK Mittal

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…of section 2(22)(e) is the date on which loan has been advanced and 44 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 not any other date. In support of this, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.K. Mittal [1996] 219 ITR 420 (All). The Ld. Counsel placed further reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of KIIC Investment Company v. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 19 (mum-Trib) and submitted that the relevant date for ascertaining the shareholding is the date of granting of loan. 16.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the factual finding of…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…of section 2(22)(e) is the date on which loan has been advanced and 44 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 not any other date. In support of this, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.K. Mittal [1996] 219 ITR 420 (All). The Ld. Counsel placed further reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of KIIC Investment Company v. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 19 (mum-Trib) and submitted that the relevant date for ascertaining the shareholding is the date of granting of loan. 16.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the factual finding of…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…of section 2(22)(e) is the date on which loan has been advanced and 44 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 not any other date. In support of this, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.K. Mittal [1996] 219 ITR 420 (All). The Ld. Counsel placed further reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of KIIC Investment Company v. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 19 (mum-Trib) and submitted that the relevant date for ascertaining the shareholding is the date of granting of loan. 16.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the factual finding of…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…of section 2(22)(e) is the date on which loan has been advanced and 44 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 not any other date. In support of this, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.K. Mittal [1996] 219 ITR 420 (All). The Ld. Counsel placed further reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of KIIC Investment Company v. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 19 (mum-Trib) and submitted that the relevant date for ascertaining the shareholding is the date of granting of loan. 16.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the factual finding of…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…of section 2(22)(e) is the date on which loan has been advanced and 44 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 not any other date. In support of this, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.K. Mittal [1996] 219 ITR 420 (All). The Ld. Counsel placed further reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of KIIC Investment Company v. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 19 (mum-Trib) and submitted that the relevant date for ascertaining the shareholding is the date of granting of loan. 16.6 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the factual finding of…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Margadarsi Marketing Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 763/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal ChoudaryFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s Margadarsi Marketing Income-tax, Circle – 16(2) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyd. PAN – AABCM4752F Appellant Respondent Revenue by: Smt. Suman Malik Assessee by: Shri K. Gopal Choudary Date of hearing: 16/01/2018 Date of pronouncement: 24/01/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) - 4, Hyderabad, dated 16/2/2017 relates to the AY 2011-12. 2.…

Sabyasachi Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 36(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1495/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri T. P. Kar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Dutta, JCIT., Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…The intention of the legislature is therefore to tax dividend only in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern.” 8. Ld. AR further placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mittal (HK) (1996) 219 ITR 420 wherein it has been held that on the date the loan is advanced, the recipient should be a shareholder. If it is not so established the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply. 9. In CIT Vs. AR Magnetics (P) Ltd. reported in (2014) 220 Taxman 209 wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that deemed dividend provisions cannot be invoked merely…

Mr. Naresh Sharma, Karnal vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4945/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4945/Del./2011 Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Naresh Sharma, Vs. Ito, 605, Sector-5, Ward-3(2), Room No.385A, Karnal C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Pan:Alis4868F New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Respondent By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2015 Order Per O.P.Kant, A.M. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.08.2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Vi, New Delhi, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ao & The Cit (A) Erred In Law & On The Facts Holding That A Sum Of Rs.6,36,117/- Was Taxable In The Hands Of The Appellant As 'Deemed Dividend' Within The Meaning Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The It Act. 2. The Appellant Submits That Facts Stated By The Appellant & Law As Explained By The Appellant Was Not Correctly Interpreted. The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Have Been Wrongly Construed & Erroneously Invoked. 3. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ao & The Cit Appeals Was Not Justified In Enhancing Rs.80,000/- On Account Of Ita No.4945/Del./2011 2

For Appellant: Sh.Rajeev Sachdeva, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…as deemed dividend. The section being a deeming provision has to be construed strictly as held in the by the Hon‟ble Kerela High Court in the case of CIT Vs. PV John (1990) 181 ITR 1. The Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. HK Mittal (1996) 219 ITR 420 has held that the chief ingredient is that one should be a share holder on the date the loan is advanced to the him and where such ingredient is not established, the advance could not be taken as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR in his submission relied on judgement of the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of Comm…

CIT v. HK Mittal (219 ITR 420) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax