CIT v. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd.

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

…advance or loan was not fulfilled and even assuming that it was a dividend, it has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and not in the hands of the assessee. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 48 taxman.com 294 (Bom.); 367 ITR 346 (Bom.), wherein, certain companies advance money to the assessee company in which one director of the assessee was holding more than 10% of equity shares and since the assessee itself was not the shareholder of those lending companies, the addition made by the Assessing Officer invoking section 2(22)(e) of the Act was not sustainable. The rele…

Lakshmiwadi Mines & Minerals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lakshmiwadi Mines & Ito-2(2)(2) Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 548, 5Th Vs. 20, Yusuf Building 43 Floor M.G. Road, Fort Aayakarbhavan Mumbai-400023. M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl1756F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Purushottam Kashyap, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017

…In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the finding of the AO and confirmed the addition of Rs.2,75,000/- made as deemed dividend. 8 8.1 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom). On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that in the case of Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in case of a person who is a share…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…mpany. 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 therefore the addition as confirmed by the FAA should deleted. 8 6. On the other hand, the ld.DR submitted that the facts of the case…

DCIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. S.R.M Agro Foods, Navi Mumbai

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/7397/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-28 (3)(1) M/s. S.R.M. Agro Foods 3rd Flr, Vashi Rly Station Complex Office No.519, Plot No.20, The Great Vs. Vash…

Kedar Entertainment and Software Company, Mumbai vs. ITO Ws 20(1)4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2001-02

…l-31 erred in confirming the Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,52,880/-. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Impact Containers P. Ltd. [1914] 367 ITR 346 (Bom), the impugned order confirming penalty is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble Court in this case has held that deemed dividend can be assessed only in case of a person who is a shareholder of lending company and not in the hands of the person other than shareholder. In the present case the assessee is not the shareholder of th…

Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal, Mumbai vs. ITO(It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…09) 118 ITD 1 (MUM.)(SB)] has held that the expression "shareholder" in section 2(22)(e) of the Act refers to both registered shareholders and beneficial shareholder. The same view has also been held in the following decisions:- i) Impact Containers (P) Ltd., 367 ITR 346; and ii) Universal Medicare (P0 Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In the present case, the assessee is not a beneficial shareholder and hence de hors the proceedings in the case of National Travel Services where addition has been made u/s.2(22)(e), the said condition cannot be sustained in assessee’s hand. 11. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Bombay High…