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, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1514/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 80ISection 80i

…P.) Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com/199 Taxman 341 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sarva Equity (P.) Ltd. [2014] 44 taxmann.com 28 (Kar.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co. [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC). In the facts of the present case since the assessee company was not a shareholder of M/s Ambuja Realty Development Ltd, we therefore are of the considered view that the aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the assessee's case. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1 therefore…

Srinivasa Machine Works, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

ITA 844/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/CHNY/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1st Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAQFS2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/CHNY/2017 (…

Srinivasa Machine Works, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

ITA 3434/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/CHNY/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1st Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAQFS2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/CHNY/2017 (…

Srinivasa Machine Works, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

ITA 1969/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/CHNY/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1st Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAQFS2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/CHNY/2017 (…

Microfinish Valves Private Limited, Hubli vs. Asst.C.I.T., Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1449/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2011-12 M/s. Microfinish Valves Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, B-161/162, Industrial Estate, Circle – 2(1), Gokul Road, Hubli. Hubli. PAN : AABCM 2527 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 14.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is dir…

M/S. Kumarpur Agro Poultries Ltd., Paschim Medinupur vs. ACIT, Circle - 38, Midnapore, Paschim Medinupur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Kumarpur Agro Poultries Ltd................................................................……………….…......Appellant Vill:- Kumarpur P.O.-Panchkuri Paschim Medinipur [Pan : Aacck7547 B] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-38, Midnapore……............……….…....Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

…t apply. For this proposition he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech pvt Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Company reported in 401 ITR 152 (SC). 6. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Travel Service vs. CIT (2018) 401 ITR 154, and submitted that, to attract Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, a shareholder has only to be a person who is the beneficial owner of the shares and…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Subhavarsha Infotech, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed whereas that of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2805/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ted that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Travel Services (supra), though it was in favour of the Revenue, the issue was still to be settled. According to him, preference ought have been given to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex (2018) 401 ITR 152. In any case, according to decision of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to exclude a sum of "3,00,00,000/-, while making the addition could not be faulted. According to him, this amount was advanced by the assessee to Smt. Priya Rachel and there was no benefit to the partners. Thus, according to him, the relief given by the ld. Commis…

Subhavarsha Infotech, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed whereas that of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2365/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ted that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Travel Services (supra), though it was in favour of the Revenue, the issue was still to be settled. According to him, preference ought have been given to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex (2018) 401 ITR 152. In any case, according to decision of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to exclude a sum of "3,00,00,000/-, while making the addition could not be faulted. According to him, this amount was advanced by the assessee to Smt. Priya Rachel and there was no benefit to the partners. Thus, according to him, the relief given by the ld. Commis…

Microfinish Valves Pvt Ltd, Hubli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1706/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(22)(e)

…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 Assessee 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 Assessee’s case. 15. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the action of the revenue authorities in bring to tax a sum of Rs.4 Crores as deemed dividend…