How many judgments cite CIT v. Hotel Hilltop?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hotel Hilltop (217 CTR 527), spanning 2015 to 2019.

CIT v. Hotel Hilltop

217 CTR 527High Court#8874 most cited

What is CIT v. Hotel Hilltop authority for?

A loan or advance given by a company to a concern where a shareholder holding at least 10% voting power has a substantial interest may be deemed a dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Also referred to as

CIT vs Hotel Hilltop · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loan to concern · substantial interest · partnership firm · company advance · Rajasthan High Court

Judgments citing CIT v. Hotel Hilltop

Microfinish Valves Private Limited, Hubli vs. Asst.C.I.T., Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1449/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43B

…. We have already seen the divergent views on this issue which have been referred to in the earlier part of this order. 31. The above provisions were subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Cale& al die case of CIT Vs. Hotel Hilltop. 217 CTR 527(Raj). The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Court were as follows. The Assessee was one M/S.Hotel Hilltop a partnership firm. This firm received an advance of Rs.10 lacs from a company M/S.Hilltop palace Hotels (P) Ltd. The shareholding pattern of M/S.Hillltop Palace Hotels (P) Ltd., was as follows: 1. Shri Roop Kumar Khurana 23.33% 2. Smt.Sa…

Microfinish Valves Pvt Ltd, Hubli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1706/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(22)(e)

…. We have already seen the divergent views on this issue which have been referred to in the earlier part of this order. 31. The above provisions were subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Hilltop. 217 CTR 527(Raj). The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Court were as follows. The Assessee was one M/S.Hotel Hilltop a partnership firm. This firm received an advance of Rs.10 lacs from a company M/S.Hilltop palace Hotels (P) Ltd. The shareholding pattern of M/S.Hillltop Palace Hotels (P) Ltd., was as follows: 1. Shri Roop Kumar Khurana : 23.33% 2. Smt.S…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 118/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T.Circle-12(2) -Vs.- M/S Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaocs 4689 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 118/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T.Circle-12(2) -vs.- M/s Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAOCS 4689 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT For the Respondent : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate Date of Hearing : 27.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 04.11.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-18, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2012-…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S J. K. M. Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1462/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.1461 & 1462 /Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward – 12 (1) Vs.- M/S J.K.M.Investment (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcj 2724 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A Nos.1461 & 1462 /Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward – 12 (1) vs.- M/s J.K.M.Investment (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata. [PAN : AABCJ 2724 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R. Date of Hearing : 04.12.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM ITA Nos.1461 & 1462/Kol/2015 are appeals filed by the revenue against two different orders of both dated 16.09.2015 of…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S J. K. M. Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1461/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R

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

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)

…0/- can be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. In this regard reliance was placed on the following decisions: • Acit vs. Bhaumik Colour Private Ltd. 118 ITD 1 • CIT vs Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd 190 Taxman 144 (Bom) • CIT vs Hotel Hiltop 217 CTR 527 (Raj) The assessee has also taken a plea that the accounts between these companies should be treated as current account and the transactions temporary in nature. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea of the assessee by referring to section 2(22)(e), according to which any loan or deposit given by a company to a share holder, who is holding…

D.C.I.T., Cen. Circle-VIII, Kolkata vs. M/S East End Silks (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 38/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, AR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 38/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 D.C.I.T., Central Circle-VIII, -vs.- M/s. East End Silks (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAACE 5742 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri Anil Kochar, AR Date of Hearing : 04.08.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 29.11.2013 of CIT(A)- Central-I, Kolkata relating to AY 2010-11. 2…

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 601/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 40A(7)(b)

…We have already seen the divergent views on this issue which have been referred to in the earlier part of this order. 31. The above provisions were subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Hilltop. 217 CTR 527(Raj). The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Court were as follows. The Assessee was one M/S.Hotel Hilltop a partnership firm. This firm received an advance of Rs.10 lacs from a company M/S.Hilltop palace Hotels (P) Ltd. The shareholding pattern of M/S.Hillltop Palace Hotels (P) Ltd., was as follows: 1. Shri Roop Kumar Khurana : 23.33% 2. Smt.…

Principle Commissioner vs. Sri. Rajeev

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/305/2015HC Karnataka23 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 23Section 260

…ivergent views on this issue which have 17 been referred to in the earlier part of this order. 31. The above provisions were subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Hilltop. 217 CTR 527(Raj). The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Court were as follows. The Assessee was one M/S.Hotel Hilltop a partnership firm. This firm received an advance of Rs.10 lacs from a company M/S.Hilltop palace Hotels (P) Ltd. The shareholding pattern of M/S.Hillltop Palace Hotels (P) Ltd., was as follows: 1. Shri Roop Kumar Khurana : 23…

Shiv Transport & Travels, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-56(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 889/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Gayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 77A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shiv Transport & Travels -vs.- I.T.O., Wd-56(1), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AASFS4454N) (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate For the Respondent : Md.Gayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13.01.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2016. ORDER This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 17.2.2015 of CIT(A)- 12, Kolkata, relating to AY 2007-08. 2. The only addition that is challenged in this appeal is the add…

M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 405/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “D”, KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. -versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-7(1), Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCJ 0993 R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) For the Appellant : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 15.12.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 15.1.2016. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order dated 18.03.2015 of CIT-Kolkata-3, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2010-11. 2. The undisputed facts are that the…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 22Section 23