CIT v. Jignesh P. Shah (372 ITR 392)

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)

…shareholder in a company from which loan was received, hence loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend. (c) The decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Jignesh P 32 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Shah [2015) 54 tamann.com 293/229 Taxman 302/372 ITR 392 wherein it has held that the provision of 'section 2(22) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held th…

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)

…shareholder in a company from which loan was received, hence loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend. (c) The decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Jignesh P 32 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Shah [2015) 54 tamann.com 293/229 Taxman 302/372 ITR 392 wherein it has held that the provision of 'section 2(22) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held th…

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)

…shareholder in a company from which loan was received, hence loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend. (c) The decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Jignesh P 32 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Shah [2015) 54 tamann.com 293/229 Taxman 302/372 ITR 392 wherein it has held that the provision of 'section 2(22) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held th…

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)

…shareholder in a company from which loan was received, hence loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend. (c) The decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Jignesh P 32 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Shah [2015) 54 tamann.com 293/229 Taxman 302/372 ITR 392 wherein it has held that the provision of 'section 2(22) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held th…

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)

…shareholder in a company from which loan was received, hence loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend. (c) The decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Jignesh P 32 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Shah [2015) 54 tamann.com 293/229 Taxman 302/372 ITR 392 wherein it has held that the provision of 'section 2(22) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of the Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT (2009] 28 SOT 383, wherein it is held th…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…preme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del). Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, u…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…preme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del). Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, u…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…preme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del). Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, u…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…preme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del). Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, u…

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

ITA 492/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.492/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional MIDC Area, Ambad, Nashik. PAN: AAACG 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nishint Gandhi – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 20/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal file…

PALLAVA RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 5 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 700/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:700/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2011 – 2012

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sundraraman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

…since the recipient of the loan was not a shareholder in a company from which loan was received, hence loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend. (c) The decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jignesh P. Shah [2015] 372 ITR 392 (Bom.) wherein it has held that the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked unless the Assessee itself is a shareholder of the company who was lending money to him. (d) The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in the case of The Bombay Oil Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…tion money from M/s. BTPL can not be taxed under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In defence of his arguments, the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co. Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2013 2. CIT vs. Jignesh P Shah (2015) 372 ITR 392 (Bom.) (HC) 3. Pr. CIT vs. Rajeev Chandrashekhar (2017) 397 ITR 263 (Kar.) (HC) 4. CIT vs. Pravin Bhimshi Chheda (2015) 228 Taxman 340 (Bom)(HC)(MAG) 7. The ld counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd Vs ACIT M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2019)410 ITR 247…

ACIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY LTD DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1348/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ived an amount of Rs.15 crores from its sister concern, BRIPL. The assessee in this regard has also placed reliance in cases of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263 (supra) and CtT, Central-IV v. Jignesh P. Shah [2015] 372 ITR 392 (supra). 18 The facts decided in these case laws are distinguishable from the facts of the assessee's case. Further, to gain strength in the similar facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention the case law CIT v. N.S.N. Jewellers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 113 (Bombay) [SLP admitted.] in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5558 of 2015 dated…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHAUDHARY CARS PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 957/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.957/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment year : 2012-13 The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Nashik. ………. अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम v/s Chaudhary Cars Pvt. Limited, ………. ""यथ" / 11, ‘Swed Bindu’, Shanti Nagar, Respondent Yawal Road, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. PAN : AADCC7960R. Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak. Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04.02.2019 Date o…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BAHETI ROHOPLAST PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2583/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…to be a “shareholder” he may be beneficially entitled to the shares but he is certainly not a shareholder.” 6 ITA.No.2583/Del./2016 M/s. Baheti Rohoplast Pvt. Ltd.,New Delhi. 7.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (2015) 372 ITR 392 (Bom.) held as under: “Fiscal statutes have to be interpreted strictly. On a strict interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, unless the assessee is the shareholder of the company lending him money, no occasion to apply it can arise. The assessee received a loan from a company NS. The Revenue sought to tax this loan as…

DCIT, MADURAI vs. GLOBAL POLYBAGS IDNUSTRIES (P) LIMITED, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1596/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1596/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.V. Rajasekaran, C.A

Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1596/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-2010 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Global Polybags Industries (P) Income Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle I, 500A Perali Road, Madurai Virudhunagar 626 001. [PAN AABCG 2203K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT. ""…

CIT v. Jignesh P. Shah

Also reported as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Jignesh P. Shah

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MINAL CONSTRACTORS AND BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MAC QUALITY BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKILANSTRUCTURALS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKUNDA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

PALLAVA RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 5 (1),, CHENNAI

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

ACIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY LTD DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHAUDHARY CARS PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BAHETI ROHOPLAST PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

DCIT, MADURAI vs. GLOBAL POLYBAGS IDNUSTRIES (P) LIMITED, VIRUDHUNAGAR