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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1333/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

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…

Pawa International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 2723/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawa International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit M-102, Greater Kailash Part- Circle-19 (2) I, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacp6108P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 13.09.2023 By Nfac, Delhi.

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Pawa International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT M-102, Greater Kailash Part- Circle-19 (2) I, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi PAN No.AAACP6108P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr DR Date of hearing: 04/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 04/12/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 13.09.2023 by NFAC, Delhi…

Global Business Conexxtions Pvt.Ltd., Madhya Pradesh vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), Mumbai

ITA 720/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Global Business Conexxtions Private Limited, FB 38-39, Mansarovar Complex, 7 No Stop Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal - 462016 [PAN: AAECG0819J] …………… Appellant Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Vs Commissioner of Income Tax 5(3), Mumbai Room No. 1906, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Respondent ……………. Mumbai - 400021 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Jitendra Singh For the Respondent/Department : Dr. Kishor Dhule Date : 28.06.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 22.09.2023 Pronou…

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Automotives Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam Mp

ITA 555/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, M/s. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: AANCS 1007 M Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ujjain […

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Sagar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 569/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 553 & 554/Ind/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant M/s. Shirani Motors Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Ratlam Vs 29, Shirani Pura, Ratlam (M.P.) PAN: AAJCS2531G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant M/s. Sagar Commissioner of Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Ratlam Vs Mitra Niwas Road, Ratlam(M.P.) PAN: AAHCS6984R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented :…

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 554/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 553 & 554/Ind/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant M/s. Shirani Motors Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Ratlam Vs 29, Shirani Pura, Ratlam (M.P.) PAN: AAJCS2531G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant M/s. Sagar Commissioner of Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Ratlam Vs Mitra Niwas Road, Ratlam(M.P.) PAN: AAHCS6984R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented :…

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 553/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 553 & 554/Ind/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant M/s. Shirani Motors Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Ratlam Vs 29, Shirani Pura, Ratlam (M.P.) PAN: AAJCS2531G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant M/s. Sagar Commissioner of Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Ratlam Vs Mitra Niwas Road, Ratlam(M.P.) PAN: AAHCS6984R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented :…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is stand dismissed

ITA 1385/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-15(2)(2) Vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Limited, 20/21, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Navnandavan Indl Estate, Road, Marine Lines, L.B.S Marg, Mulund Mumbai – 400 020 (West), Mumbai – 400 080 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcp1825G Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Malav ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ITR 14 (Del), National Travel Services (2012) 249 CTR (del) 540 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sarva Equity (P) Ltd, (2014) 111 DTR 207 (Karn) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS Madhur Housing and Development Co. 401 ITR 152(SC). Since the appellant in the present case is not a shareholder in the lender company, we are of the view that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record.…

Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9595/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of the facts and arguments narrated above, we notice at the outset that the assessee firm has obtained loans from the sister concer…

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6440/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of the facts and arguments narrated above, we notice at the outset that the assessee firm has obtained loans from the sister concer…

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(4), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of the facts and arguments narrated above, we notice at the outset that the assessee firm has obtained loans from the sister concer…

M/S. Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4446/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e Delhi I.T.As. No.4446/Del/2016, 2406/Del/2018, 6440 & 9595/Del/2019 7 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company, (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) shall squarely apply and thus no addition is permissible in the absence of the assessee firm being neither registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder in the lender company. 4.4 On careful consideration of the facts and arguments narrated above, we notice at the outset that the assessee firm has obtained loans from the sister concer…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Claridge Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4874/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, 12, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-1100011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0022B

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 145(3)

…t the registered shareholder of AIPL or GSL. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following judicial precedents: a. The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Madhur Housing & Development Co. reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 3961 of 2013 [401 ITR 152 (SC)] approved the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 14, wherein it has been held that an assessee who was not a shareholder of the company from which he received a loan or an advance cannot be treated as covered by the definition of the word 'dividend' as contained in section 2(22)(e). b. J…

Asip Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1869/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar for Srikanth – DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…ility of the impugned deeming fiction in a case involving common shareholders in National Travel Services Vs. CIT (2018) 2 401 ITR 154 (SC) thereby doubting the correctness of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd and CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC). There is further no quarrel between the parties that the foregoing hon’ble larger bench is yet to decide the instant issue. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication on merits after awaiting for the hon’ble apex cour…

DCIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. New India Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 351/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2021AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

…)(e ) of the Act are not attracted herein. We find that the ld CITA had noted that assessee had placed reliance on the decision of 5 M/s. New India Mining Corporation Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Madhur Housing and Development Company reported in 401 ITR 152 wherein it was held that deemed dividend was a legal fiction and that the concept of legal fiction does not extend to the term shareholder and could not be further extended for broadening the concept of shareholders. The ld CITA noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had dismissed the appeal of the revenue stating that the deemed dividend could be ass…

DCIT vs. M/S Coastal Costruction

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed, while the CO by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1005/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kdy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Bangalore. …. Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(D.R.)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 153CSection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 234

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s.Coastal Constructions, Zubaida Manzil, J.M. Road, Suratkal, Mangalore. …… Respondent. PAN AAGFC 3601F C.O. No.40/Bang/2014 (In ITA No.1005/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) (By Assessee) Assessee By: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(D.R.) Date of Hearing : 15.02.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2021. Page 2 of 1…

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…............. …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. 3.2.8 Now, moving still further, i note that this issue stands virtually pre-empted a judgement of no less than the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs Madhur Housing and Development Company, 401 ITR 152, in which case the Apex Court has held that the deemed dividend was basically a legal fiction. That, the concept of legal fiction does not extend to the term shareholder and could not be further extended for broadening the concept of shareholders. The Apex Court has further held that the circular no 495 dated 22/09/1987, of CBDT was not binding o…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…............. …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. 3.2.8 Now, moving still further, i note that this issue stands virtually pre-empted a judgement of no less than the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs Madhur Housing and Development Company, 401 ITR 152, in which case the Apex Court has held that the deemed dividend was basically a legal fiction. That, the concept of legal fiction does not extend to the term shareholder and could not be further extended for broadening the concept of shareholders. The Apex Court has further held that the circular no 495 dated 22/09/1987, of CBDT was not binding o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3920/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare: 324 ITR 263 (Bom). He also placed reliance on the additions reported inCIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd: 340 ITR 14 (Del), which was further upheld by the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company 401 ITR 152 (SC), and IT vs. MotherIndia Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 711. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. MotherIndia Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd.: 155 ITR 711 also. 12. For proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties on this aspect, we deem it necessary to look into the p…

DCIT - 21(3), Mumbai vs. Rupin Hemant Banker, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2845/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Badresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 22(2)(e)

…with reference to the additional evidence. In support of his contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) DCIT v/s Maipo India Ltd., [2008] 116 TTJ 791 (Del.HC); ii) CIT v/s Madhur Housing And Development Co., [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC); and iii) Nandlal Kanoria v/s CIT, [1980] 122 ITR 405 (Cal.). 7 Shri Rupin Hemant Banker 11. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the facts on record clearly reveal that the assessee not only has substantial shareholding in the company which advanced the loan to his wife, but he was fully in control not only with the affairs…