CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd.

U.S. Instruments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 U.S. Instruments P. Ito 1(3)(4) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ C/O H.N. Motiwalla & Vs. Co. 508 Sharda Mumbai Chamber, 33 New Marine Lines, Mumbai -400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacu0667J Appellant By Shri H. N. Motiwalla (Ar) Revenue By Shri N. V. Nadkarni (Dr)

…of Rs.2,24,298/- against the assessed income under the head "Income from other sources" without appreciating the judgements of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. [216 ITR 607] and CIT Vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. [155 ITR 711 (SC)] which were specifically handed over to him at the time of hearing.” 2.1. The facts in brief, are that the assessee is a company. It filed it return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,49,383/-. The case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) and the assessment thereof was completed by AO vide order dated 1…

Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale, Thane vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5410/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" Shri Chandrasekhar Maruti Vs. Acit-10(2), Mumbai- Musale Flat No.1203/1204, 400020 12Th Floor, Carlyle Raheja Garden, Lbs Marg, Off. Tip Top Thane, Mumbai-400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm 3914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Chetan A. Karia राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. S.Pandian सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 21-5-2012. 2. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated The Addition Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) At The Hands Of The Assessee On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property & Other Sources. The Assessee Was Having Major Shareholding In 3 Companies Namely; (I) M/S.Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. (Ii) M/ S. Advance Scientific Equipment P.Ltd. & (Iii) M/S. Star Earth Minerals P.Ltd. During Assessment Proceedings, From The Replies Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Noticed That M/S. Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. Had Advanced An Amount Of Rs.31,00,000/- On 16.12.2008 To M/S. Advance Scientific Equipment P. Ltd. & M/S.

…nd produce a rational construction. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court again explained the meaning of a deeming provision under the Income Tax Act in the case of CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711, which reads as under:— "The legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field." The Hon’ble High Court further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court “CIT v. Raj Kumar” [2009] 318 ITR 462(Delhi) and Hon’ble Kolkata High Cou…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Bhavarlal C. Suthar, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Years:2007-08 Acit-25(3), Shri Bhavarlal C.Suthar C-11, R. No.308, C/4/705, Sai Krupa Chsl, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Sector-7, Kandivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400067 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaops8548P

…tion vs ACIT (36 DTR 220)(Hyd. ITAT) and another decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs DCIT (26 DTR 79), in which the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Mother India Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. 48 CTR (SC) 176; 155 ITR 711 (SC) and CBDT Circular No.5 of 2005 dated 15/07/2005 (2005) 197 CTR (St.) 1 has been discussed. Totality of facts clearly indicates that since the amount had already been paid during the year, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not attracted. In view of these facts, we affirm the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2.3…