CIT v. Madhur Housing and Development Company

401 ITR 152Supreme Court of India2018#2366 most cited

What is CIT v. Madhur Housing and Development Company authority for?

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a 'concern' where a common shareholder has a substantial interest is not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) for the 'concern' if it is not a shareholder of the lending company. Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is taxable only in the hands of the registered or beneficial shareholder.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Madhur Housing and Development Company · Madhur Housing · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · closely held company · loan to concern · shareholder vs concern · beneficial owner · taxable person 2(22)(e) · Ankitech P. Ltd. affirmed · 401 ITR 152 · 93 Taxmann.com 502

Also reported as

93 Taxmann.com 502

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 234A

Issues it is cited on

closely held companysection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)accumulated profitssection 36(l)(iii)section 47beneficial ownersource of sourcebusiness expediencysection 132(4a)section 292c

Judgments citing CIT v. Madhur Housing and Development Company

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…. 8. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It has been held in Commissioner of Income Tax. vs. Madhur Housing & Development Co. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 502 (SC)/[2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC)[05-10-2017] in which the order in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi) by the Hon'ble High court had been affirmed which had stated that in which it was held that (i) legal fiction created under section 2(22)(e) enlarges definition of dividend only and it cannot be extended further fo…

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Madineni Sitaramaiah, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

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

…ACIT-CIRCLE 5(1),HYD. VS. MADINENI SITARAMAIAH आयकर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘ए’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साविडया, माननीय लेखा सद" SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 598/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) ACIT, Circle 5(1) Vs. Madineni Sitaramaiah Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN : ANNPM5682Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) CO No. 16/Hyd/2025 Arising out of आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.598/Hyd/2025) (िनधा"रण वष"/…

Bsst India Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4448/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4448/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Bsst India Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income Tax D-586, Govind Puram, Vs. (Appeals), Ghaziabad. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Pan No.Aafcb8294F (Nfac), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…ividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act at the hands of the concern. According to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ankitech P. Ltd. 340 ITR 14 (Del) which was approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Madhur Housing & Developing Company 401 ITR 152 (SC) where there is an arrangement where entity has borrowed a loan from another entity than it is a lender which holds share of borrower which should be held to be liable to pay tax on such deemed dividend and not the borrower itself. Any company is supposed to distribute the profits in the form of dividend to its shareholders/members and such d…

Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7080/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhimgiri Realtors Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 11 (3), Flat No.818, 8Th Floor, New Delhi. Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Deli – 110 019. (Pan : Aabch6093E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 28.08.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Appeal Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & In Violation Of Rudimentary Principal Of Contemporary Jurisprudence.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…t limb of section 2(22)(e) which refers to registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. Further he brought to our notice pages 68 & 69 of the paper book wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. M/s. Madhur Housing and Development Company (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) has upheld the abovesaid decision and prayed that the above addition may be deleted. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that assessee has borrowed short term loans from the other sister concerns, namely, Shree Mahesh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Smart Estates Pvt. Ltd. are subsidiary of M/s. Aeren R…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1349/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. ITA No.1336/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.1349/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) VS. Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida - 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN :AACCH4156K) ITA No.1193/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida - 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). (PA…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1336/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. ITA No.1336/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.1349/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) VS. Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida - 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN :AACCH4156K) ITA No.1193/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida - 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AA…

Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Central Circle, Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. ITA No.1336/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.1349/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) VS. Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida - 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN :AACCH4156K) ITA No.1193/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida - 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). VS. (PAN : A…

M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1349/DEL/2021 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) DCIT, Central Circle, vs. Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida – 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN :AACCH4156K) Solitaire Realinfra Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City Ghaziabad. in front of Buddha Circuit, Noida – 110 065 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AACCH4156K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh…

Ravi Pichaya, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 73/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.73 & 2205/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Shri Ravi Pichaya, Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik. Director in Hextech Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., B-76, MIDC, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. PAN : ACLPP9236E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of hearing : 11.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: These are recalled matter. Both the above…

Ravi Pichaya, Director in Hextech Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2205/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.73 & 2205/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Shri Ravi Pichaya, Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik. Director in Hextech Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., B-76, MIDC, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. PAN : ACLPP9236E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of hearing : 11.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: These are recalled matter. Both the above…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Yellow Sapphire International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3467/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 212Section 56Section 56(1)

…ordingly. As otherwise, it would amount to escapement of income at the hands of those shareholders.” 7. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi referred above was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development Co. 93 Taxmann.com 502 (SC) as under: 6 Yellow Sapphire International Pvt. Ltd. “The impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 has relied upon a judgment of the same date by a Division Bench of the High Court in ITA No. 462 of 2009. Having perused the judgment and having heard arguments, we are of the view that the judgment is a detailed judgment going into…

Dcitcc-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Constructions, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 841/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit-Cc-2(3) V. Avinash Constructions Room No. 803, 8Th Floor Abil House 2, Ganesh Khind Road Old Cgo Annexe Building Range, Hill Corner, Pune -411007 M. K. Road, Marine Lines Pune, Maharashtra Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…der section 2(22)(e) of the Act enlarges definition of dividend only and legal fiction is not to be extended further broadening concept of shareholders. This has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company [401 ITR 152]. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt., Ltd., (supra) read as under: - “9. …... However, even on the second aspect which has weighed with the Tribunal, we are of the view that the construction which has been placed on the provisions of s. 2(22)(e) is correct. Sec. 2(22)(e) defines the ambi…

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Shri Ketan Realities Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…xplanation IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “ C ” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No:1383/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T, Shri Ketan Realities Central Circle-2, Private Limited, Vadodara Vs 306, Payal Tower, Sayajigunj, Vadodara-390005. PAN: AADCK6708P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue Represented: Smt.Malarkodi R,, SR-DR Assessee Represented: Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Date of hearing : 26-03-2024 Date of pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Revenu…

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)

…he said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT…

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)

…he said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT…

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)

…he said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT…

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)

…he said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT…

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)

…he said expression has been the subject matter of the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Private Limited (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC), In the case of CIT vs Ankitech 17 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1335/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…as not a registered shareholder in the concerned company from which the loan was obtained. Hence, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Company reported in 401 ITR 152 (SC) and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ankitech (P) Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 0014(Del.) for the proposition that addition for deemed dividend made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act can be done in the hands of the shareholder only. Since, the assessee is not registered shareholder in the loan given company, the addition on…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1334/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…as not a registered shareholder in the concerned company from which the loan was obtained. Hence, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Company reported in 401 ITR 152 (SC) and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ankitech (P) Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 0014(Del.) for the proposition that addition for deemed dividend made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act can be done in the hands of the shareholder only. Since, the assessee is not registered shareholder in the loan given company, the addition on…

CIT v. Madhur Housing and Development Company (401 ITR 152) — Cited in 49 Judgments | BharatTax