CIT v. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd.

ITO 30 (1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BLOSSOM DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the both appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito 30(1)(1) Vs. M/S Blossom Room No. 436, 4Th Floor Developers Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Survey No. 273, Village G Block, Bandra(East) Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Mumbai – 400051. Malad (E), Mumbai – 400097. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Blossom Vs. Ito 30(1)(1) Developers Room No. 436, 4Th Survey No. 273, Village Floor Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Malad (E), G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400097. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent

…ents made on behalf of or for the individual benefit of a shareholder. The definition does not alter the legal position that dividend has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder." 10. Further, this Court in the case of CIT v. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. - 367 ITR 346 while dealing with the issue of deemed dividend categorically held that Section 2(220(e) of the Act cannot be applied/invoked where the assessee is not a shareholder of the leading company. The objective of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is only to ensure that the Company in which the public are not substantially interested would not distribute its…

DCIT 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NEW INDIA MINING CORPORATION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…either stayed nor reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence the same would be binding on this tribunal. We find that the ld AR further relied on the following decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court :- a) CIT vs Impact Containers (P) Ltd reported in 367 ITR 346 (Bom) b) CIT vs Alfa Sai Minerals (P) Ltd reported in 398 ITR 660 (Bom) 2.6. We find that the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court squarely address the issue in dispute before us and respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld CITA deleting the addition made on account of deemed…

VIVEK DATTATRAY SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Yasham Bio Dcit 8(3), Sciences Pvt. Ltd.(Now Now Ito 11(3)(4), Known As Yasham Aayakar Bhavan, Speciality Ingredients Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.) , Vs. B/5, Pooja Unit Chs Ltd., Model Town, J.P. Road, 4 Bunglows, Andhra (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacy 2899N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Vivek Dattatray Dcit 8(3), Samant, Now Ito 11(3)(4), 405, Raheja Crest Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, 1 Off Link Orad, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aazps 4623G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against Two Different Orders Dated 23.01.2017 & 06.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax

…Yasham Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. CIT v/s Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom) CIT v/s ALFA Sai Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v/s Narmina Trade Investment Pvt. Ltd. 388 ITR 243 (Bom) CIT v.s Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 107 DTR 0145, 367 ITR 346: CIT v.s India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v/s Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 544 (Bom) The ld. AR submitted that firstly it has to be decided whether transaction is taxable as a deemed Dividend & if Yes then in whose hands it is taxable whether assessee company or Share holder. The ld AR submitted that the current acc…

YASHAM BIO SCIENCE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Yasham Bio Dcit 8(3), Sciences Pvt. Ltd.(Now Now Ito 11(3)(4), Known As Yasham Aayakar Bhavan, Speciality Ingredients Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.) , Vs. B/5, Pooja Unit Chs Ltd., Model Town, J.P. Road, 4 Bunglows, Andhra (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacy 2899N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Vivek Dattatray Dcit 8(3), Samant, Now Ito 11(3)(4), 405, Raheja Crest Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, 1 Off Link Orad, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aazps 4623G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against Two Different Orders Dated 23.01.2017 & 06.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax

…Yasham Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. CIT v/s Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom) CIT v/s ALFA Sai Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v/s Narmina Trade Investment Pvt. Ltd. 388 ITR 243 (Bom) CIT v.s Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 107 DTR 0145, 367 ITR 346: CIT v.s India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v/s Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 544 (Bom) The ld. AR submitted that firstly it has to be decided whether transaction is taxable as a deemed Dividend & if Yes then in whose hands it is taxable whether assessee company or Share holder. The ld AR submitted that the current acc…

ITO 15(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VRISA INFOTECH P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodc.O No. 174/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…any was not a shareholder of the lending company, the provisions of c. 2(22)(e) would not be attracted. The CIT(A) supported his aforesaid view by relying on the judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Impact Containers (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom) and ACIT Vs. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 544 (Bom). On the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) vacated the addition made by the A.O u/s 2(22)(e) aggregating to Rs. 3,72,94,335/-[Rs. 87,38,000/- (+) Rs. 2,85,56,335/-]. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before…

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIMPLEX RENEWABLE RESOURCES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Dcit-8(2)(1) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 M.K. Road 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.112/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of Ita No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-8(2)(1) बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg M.K. Road Vs. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/C.O.) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Chaudhury Arun Kumar, Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil Lohia, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘Act’], Dividend Includes Any Payment Of Any Sum, By A Company

…1 Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी संद"प गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) DCIT-8(2)(1) M/s. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 M.K. Road 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. "थायीलेखासं./…

DCIT-6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.FRISCHMANN PRABHU (I) PRIVETS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5554/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) In The Matter Of:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. G. S. PANNU, VP & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5554/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) In the matter of: M/s Frischmann Prabhu DCIT -6(3)(1) R. No. 506, 5th floor, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ 315, Balgovind Wadi, New Aayakar Bhavan, Prabhadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Pin- स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACF2589H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Rajiv Gubgotra, DR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Malav P. Sheth, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ :…

NEHA HOME BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 13(1)(1) 801, Hubtown Solaris Mumbai N.S. Phadke Marg, Off. Teli Galli Near Andheri Flyover Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No.Aaccn7092E Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 13(1)(1) 801, Hubtown Solaris Mumbai N.S. Phadke Marg, Off. Teli Galli Near Andheri Flyover Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069 PAN/GIR No.AACCN7092E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date of Hearing 10/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement 05/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-21, Mumbai dated 06/03/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 in the matter o…

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. GILBARCO VEEDAR ROOT INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

…ived. In coming to such a decision, the CIT(A) has relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, including the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of (i) CIT vs Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), (ii) CIT vs Impact Containers, 367 ITR 346 (Bom.) and (iii) CIT vs NSN Jewellers (P) Ltd., Income Tax Appeal no. 2312 of 2011 (Bombay HC). Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 6 M/s. Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd. 7. Before us, the ld. DR has assailed the order of CIT(A) by pointing out that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

ITO 9 (1) (1), MUMBAI vs. MANOJ UPADHYAY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed wherein

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Income Tax Officer - 9(1)(1) Vs. Mr. Manoj Upadhyay Mumbai C/O. Accu Dat Transcription Services Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Linkage House, 6 Marol Co-Op Industrial Estate, Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059

…the Act is not applicable in view of the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt Ltd reported in 27 SOT 270. The decision of the Special Bench has been confirmed by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 346. 9. With respect to genuineness of the gift, we found that assessee has filed all the documentary evidence before the lower authorities which clearly indicate that gifts of 4200 shares so given by the assessee to his wife are genuine. Accordingly, genuineness of gift was given doubt and as on date, the assessee was holding only 8% of the shares,…

ACIT - 16(1), MUMBAI vs. CINE STUDIOS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Acit-16(1), M/S Cine Studios Room. No. 439, Shree Sound Complex, बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Madhav Das Pasta Road, M.K. Road, Vs. Dadar (E) Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400014 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafc2778B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

…2794/Mum/2016 A.Y 2011-12 ACIT-16(1) M/s Cine Studios Shree Sound Complex in the hands of the shareholders and not in the hands of the firm, relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-9 Vs. Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom). The ld. A.R further relied on a judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, Udaipur Vs. Hotel Hill Top (2012) 18 taxmann.com 308 (Raj) and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1980) 3 taxman 1 (SC). 7. We have heard the…