CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah

290 ITR 433Supreme Court of India2007#1126 most cited

What is CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah authority for?

For Section 2(22)(e) to apply, a payment by a company must be in the nature of a loan or advance, and the company must have accumulated profits. Such payments to a concern in which a shareholder, holding more than 10% voting power, has a substantial interest are deemed dividends if the shareholder ultimately benefits, even if routed through different modes or concerns.

99

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah · Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433 · section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend · accumulated profits · closely held company payments · loan or advance under section 2(22)(e) · shareholder substantial interest · funds routed through conduit company · deemed dividend shareholder benefit · payment to concern shareholder interest · definition of dividend section 2(22) · closely held company deemed dividend

Also reported as

209 CTR 97

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 2(22)(e)Section 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 115-OSection 115QSection 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115qsection 133(a)section 153b(1)(a)time barred assessmentsection 148(1)accumulated profitssection 153(1)(a)closely held companybona fide mistakesection 158bcsection 2(22)section 90a

Judgments citing CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nd Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi). The Ld. DR further submits that in the case of Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (2018) 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted SLP against the impugned order of the High Court that (i) section 68 addition was not called for on the basis of st…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…onse thereto had been duly considered and had rightly been found to be not acceptable for the reasons stated on page 25 to 30 of the assessment order. The Ld. DR place reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention: 1. Mukundray K Shah – 290 ITR 433 (SC) Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 2. S. Ajit Kumar – Civil Appeal No. 10164 of 2010 – Order dated 02.05.2018(SC) 3. Surya Financial Services Ltd. – ITA no. 2915/D/2017- order dated 08.01.2018 4. Surya Jyoti Software P. Ltd.- ITA no. 2158/D/2017- Order dated 25.10.2017 5. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017- TIOL- 253-SC-IT) 6. P…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…onse thereto had been duly considered and had rightly been found to be not acceptable for the reasons stated on page 25 to 30 of the assessment order. The Ld. DR place reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention: 1. Mukundray K Shah – 290 ITR 433 (SC) Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 2. S. Ajit Kumar – Civil Appeal No. 10164 of 2010 – Order dated 02.05.2018(SC) 3. Surya Financial Services Ltd. – ITA no. 2915/D/2017- order dated 08.01.2018 4. Surya Jyoti Software P. Ltd.- ITA no. 2158/D/2017- Order dated 25.10.2017 5. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017- TIOL- 253-SC-IT) 6. P…

M/S. Wisdom Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result of appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2499/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…e of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) . 7 ITA.Nos.2497, 2498 & 2499/Del./2015 M/s. Wisdom Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2015) 378 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under : “In terms of section 153C of the…

M/S. Wisdom Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result of appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…e of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) . 7 ITA.Nos.2497, 2498 & 2499/Del./2015 M/s. Wisdom Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2015) 378 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under : “In terms of section 153C of the…

M/S. Wisdom Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result of appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2497/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…e of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) . 7 ITA.Nos.2497, 2498 & 2499/Del./2015 M/s. Wisdom Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2015) 378 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under : “In terms of section 153C of the…

Jinendra Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5907/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)

…ence, we are reproducing the relevant portion of the Tribunal’s order dated 19.11.2018 as under:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts noted above are not in dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) held that “the true test is whether the payment by Company was for the benefit of the assessee who was Managing Director.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.) held that “business transactions did not attract provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The H…

M/S. Lord Krishna Dwellers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2403/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2006-07] & [Assessment Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT(A)-DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…ince we have set aside the assessment itself, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. 15. Before closing, we have to point out that the ld. DR has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433. We find that the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand in as much as in that case, the Revenue came to know about the transaction, triggering the provisions of section 222e of the Act from the diary found during the search proceedings. Whereas in the case in hand, the sale deeds found at the time of se…

M/S. Lord Krishna Dwellers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5294/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2006-07] & [Assessment Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT(A)-DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…ince we have set aside the assessment itself, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. 15. Before closing, we have to point out that the ld. DR has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433. We find that the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand in as much as in that case, the Revenue came to know about the transaction, triggering the provisions of section 222e of the Act from the diary found during the search proceedings. Whereas in the case in hand, the sale deeds found at the time of se…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Usha Chandresh Shah Vs ITO (2014-TIOL-1459-ITAT-Mum) vi. Ratnakar M Pujari Vs ITO (2016-TIOL-1746-ITAT-Mum) vii. Arvind M Kariya Vs ACIT in ITA No. 7024/Mum/2010 viii. ITO Vs Shamim M Bharwani (2016) 69 Taxmann.com 65 (Mum) ix. CIT Vs Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) x. CIT Vs S. Ajit Kumar (2018) 93 taxmann.com 294 (SC) xi. Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1003 of 2017, order dated 12.03.2018 (Del. HC) xii. Kishore Kumar Vs CIT 62 Taxmann.com 215 (SC) xiii. Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT 351 ITR 143 (Del.) xiv. CIT Vs M. S. Aggarwal (2018) 93 taxmann.com 247 (Del.) xv. Smt. Dayawanti Vs CIT (2017) 390…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Usha Chandresh Shah Vs ITO (2014-TIOL-1459-ITAT-Mum) vi. Ratnakar M Pujari Vs ITO (2016-TIOL-1746-ITAT-Mum) vii. Arvind M Kariya Vs ACIT in ITA No. 7024/Mum/2010 viii. ITO Vs Shamim M Bharwani (2016) 69 Taxmann.com 65 (Mum) ix. CIT Vs Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) x. CIT Vs S. Ajit Kumar (2018) 93 taxmann.com 294 (SC) xi. Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1003 of 2017, order dated 12.03.2018 (Del. HC) xii. Kishore Kumar Vs CIT 62 Taxmann.com 215 (SC) xiii. Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT 351 ITR 143 (Del.) xiv. CIT Vs M. S. Aggarwal (2018) 93 taxmann.com 247 (Del.) xv. Smt. Dayawanti Vs CIT (2017) 390…

Jinendra Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4126/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…22)(e) of the I.T. Act are satisfied in this case, therefore, additions have been correctly made. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts noted above are not in dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) held that “the true test is whether the payment by Company was for the benefit of the assessee who was Managing Director.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.) held that “business transactions did not attract provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The Ho…

DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3249/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 97 (Madras) / [2015] 235 Taxman 279 (Madras) 8. Shashi Pal Agarwal Vs. CIT [2015] 54 taxmann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720…

DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3248/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 97 (Madras) / [2015] 235 Taxman 279 (Madras) 8. Shashi Pal Agarwal Vs. CIT [2015] 54 taxmann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720…

Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2472/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 97 (Madras) / [2015] 235 Taxman 279 (Madras) 8. Shashi Pal Agarwal Vs. CIT [2015] 54 taxmann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720…

Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2471/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 97 (Madras) / [2015] 235 Taxman 279 (Madras) 8. Shashi Pal Agarwal Vs. CIT [2015] 54 taxmann.com 289 (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 (Allahabad) / [2015] 370 ITR 720…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Aban Ventures Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1699/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 05.07.2018For Respondent: Mr.AR .V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)Section 68

…., discussed herein above, the Ld.AO had made addition of Rs.1.40 crores invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the case of the assessee by relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT Vs. Mukundray K.Shah reported in 290 ITR 433 and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. L. Alagu Sundaram Chettiyar reported in 109 ITR 508. While doing so, the Ld.AO was of the view that M/s. Aban Ventures Ltd., was used as a conduit company to transfer funds from M/s. Tuticorin Power Company Ltd., to Mr. Reji Abraham. When the matter cropped up befo…

Reji Abraham, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1132/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 05.07.2018For Respondent: Mr.AR .V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)Section 68

…., discussed herein above, the Ld.AO had made addition of Rs.1.40 crores invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the case of the assessee by relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT Vs. Mukundray K.Shah reported in 290 ITR 433 and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. L. Alagu Sundaram Chettiyar reported in 109 ITR 508. While doing so, the Ld.AO was of the view that M/s. Aban Ventures Ltd., was used as a conduit company to transfer funds from M/s. Tuticorin Power Company Ltd., to Mr. Reji Abraham. When the matter cropped up befo…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Seema Devi Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6462/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…if HUF is not a registered shareholder in lending company, advances/loans received by HUF is taxable as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) if Karta-shareholder has substantial interest in HUF. 3. CIT Vs Mukundrav K. Shah r20071 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/r20071 290 ITR 433 (SC)/r20071 209 CTR 97 (SC) A search conducted at assessee’s premises led to seizure of a diary, which contained purchasing of nine per cent RBI relief bonds by assessee from funds received from two firms ‘B’ and ‘C’ in which he was a partner. Tribunal after examination of cash flow statement held that two firms were used as conduits by assessee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjay Passi, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross

ITA 1450/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…y fell within description of 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22). Where guarantee commission fee had not been made for purpose of business, disallowance of guarantee commission was justified 3. CIT Vs Mukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (SC)/[2007] 209 CTR 97 (SC) (Copy Enclosed) A search conducted at assessee's premises led to seizure of a diary, which contained purchasing of nine per cent RBI relief bonds by assessee from funds received from two firms 'B' and 7 'C' in which he was a partner. Tribunal after examination of cash flow statement held that two firms were used as…