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

Victory Accomodations Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6216/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H.S. Sidhu, JM & Shri O.P. Kant, AM ITA Nos. 6216 & 6217/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Victory Accommodation Pvt. Vs ACIT, Ltd., Central Circle-09, 208, Gupta Tower, Azadpur New Delhi Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi-110033 (PAN: AACCV3923C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA Nos. 6239 & 6240/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 ACIT, Vs Victory Accommodation Pvt. Central Circle-09, Ltd., New Delhi 208, Gupta Tower, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi-110033 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : S…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5073/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…High Court, it is well known, should not ordinarily disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. Question of law should generally arise only accepting the finding of fact to be correct. 10. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433, this Court observed thus : "The above two judgments indicate that the question as to whether payment made by the company is for the benefit of the assessee is a question of fact. In this case, the Tribunal has concluded that the payment routed through MKF and MKI was for the benefit of the assessee. This was a finding of fact. It was not pervers…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5072/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…High Court, it is well known, should not ordinarily disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. Question of law should generally arise only accepting the finding of fact to be correct. 10. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433, this Court observed thus : "The above two judgments indicate that the question as to whether payment made by the company is for the benefit of the assessee is a question of fact. In this case, the Tribunal has concluded that the payment routed through MKF and MKI was for the benefit of the assessee. This was a finding of fact. It was not pervers…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5071/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…High Court, it is well known, should not ordinarily disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. Question of law should generally arise only accepting the finding of fact to be correct. 10. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433, this Court observed thus : "The above two judgments indicate that the question as to whether payment made by the company is for the benefit of the assessee is a question of fact. In this case, the Tribunal has concluded that the payment routed through MKF and MKI was for the benefit of the assessee. This was a finding of fact. It was not pervers…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5070/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…High Court, it is well known, should not ordinarily disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. Question of law should generally arise only accepting the finding of fact to be correct. 10. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433, this Court observed thus : "The above two judgments indicate that the question as to whether payment made by the company is for the benefit of the assessee is a question of fact. In this case, the Tribunal has concluded that the payment routed through MKF and MKI was for the benefit of the assessee. This was a finding of fact. It was not pervers…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha
Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…ion 2(22)(e) under the circumstances. On a query by the Bench in respect of no such condition of extension of benefit, i.e., in the section (per its’ relevant part), he would advert to the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah [2007] 290 ITR 433 (SC), wherein it upheld the application of sec.2(22)(e) on a finding by the Tribunal that the company ‘MKSEPL’, a partner in two firms, ‘MKF’ (in with assessee had interest at 16%) and ‘MKI’, had advanced Rs.5.99 crs. to the firms, and which had been utilized by the assessee for the purchase of (RBI) bonds, so that the monies had been diverted fo…

ACIT Cen Cir-I, RG0-2, Mumbai vs. Rehab Hsg. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4110/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 153A

…panchanama of the search proceeding, such incriminating material is starting point for proceeding under section 153A. In this context, learned Departmental Representative relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433 (SC). Thus, it was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative, assessee’s contention that the proceedings under section 153A, is invalid is devoid of merit. 7. We have carefully and patiently considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the Departmental Authorities as well as material on record in the light of relevant cas…

Mohammed Ahmed, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1659/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/S. Acit, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan No.Acxpa 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Memberand Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/s. ACIT, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN No.ACXPA 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Shri Niloy Baran Som, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 29-09-2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant M…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Subrata Roy

ITA/398/2010HC Delhi17 Mar 2015
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA No.398/2010 & WP(C) No.1162/2012 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On: 17.03.2015 + ITA No.398/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan & Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates. Versus SUBRATA ROY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Satyen Sethi & Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. AND + WP(C) 1162/2012 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan & Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates. Versus…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI vs. Tushar Stock & Share Brokers P. Ltd

ITA/572/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…terested. He submitted that the post-search inquiry was based on the documents seized and the information received was relatable to the assessees and that being so, was a relevant piece of evidence/information. He relied upon CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433 SC and Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT 289 ITR 341 SC. 20. Chapter XIV-B provides for 'Special Procedure for Assessment of Search Cases'. How a search would be conducted is provided for in Section 132 of the Act. 21. For the present purpose, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provision as contained in Section 132A, 158BB,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Xiii vs. Mittal Consul & Co

ITA/1277/2007HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…terested. He submitted that the post-search inquiry was based on the documents seized and the information received was relatable to the assessees and that being so, was a relevant piece of evidence/information. He relied upon CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433 SC and Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT 289 ITR 341 SC. 20. Chapter XIV-B provides for 'Special Procedure for Assessment of Search Cases'. How a search would be conducted is provided for in Section 132 of the Act. 21. For the present purpose, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provision as contained in Section 132A, 158BB,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Xiii vs. R.K.Mittal

ITA/928/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…terested. He submitted that the post-search inquiry was based on the documents seized and the information received was relatable to the assessees and that being so, was a relevant piece of evidence/information. He relied upon CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433 SC and Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT 289 ITR 341 SC. 20. Chapter XIV-B provides for 'Special Procedure for Assessment of Search Cases'. How a search would be conducted is provided for in Section 132 of the Act. 21. For the present purpose, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provision as contained in Section 132A, 158BB,…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI vs. Tushar Stock & Share Brokers P. Ltd

ITA - 572 / 2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 132ASection 158B

…terested. He submitted that the post-search inquiry was based on the documents seized and the information received was relatable to the assessees and that being so, was a relevant piece of evidence/information. He relied upon CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433 SC and Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT 289 ITR 341 SC. 20. Chapter XIV-B provides for 'Special Procedure for Assessment of Search Cases'. How a search would be conducted is provided for in Section 132 of the Act. 21. For the present purpose, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provision as contained in Section 132A, 158BB,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Xiii vs. Qimat Ali Garg

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA/759/2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 158BSection 260A

…bunal directed the addition of Rs.10,58,328/ - reduced to Rs.1,73,000/-. r.$ ITA No.759/2OIO Page 7 of 9 @ t -r' 8. The learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on the decision rendered rn Commissioner of Income Tax zt. Mukundray K. Shah, 120071 290 ITR 433 (SC). It is urged by her that after the amendment to Section 15888(b) and 158BC by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from '1,.7.1995, the finding of the tribunal deserves to be re- considered. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, controverting the said submission, has corrunended us'to the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax a. Raai Kant…

CIT vs. Naveen Gera

ITA/736/2010HC Delhi17 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 132Section 260A

…made by the AO on the ground that addition based on DVO’s report could not be sustained as no adverse material had been found during the search. She also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Mukundray K. Shah, (2007) 290 ITR 433 to contend that the block assessment of undisclosed income can be based on the evidence found in the search and/or material or information gathered in post search ITA 736/2010 Page 4 of 7 inquiries made on the basis of evidence fou…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bala Kaul

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 329 / 2009HC Delhi28 May 2009
Section 36(2)

…th this conclusion. K. Ravindranathan Nair vs- CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 178(SC): 2001(1) SCC 135 lays down that the Tribunal is the final fact finding Authority and its decision is alterable only if it is perverse [See CIT vs- Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433(SC)], CIT vs- P. Mohankala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 and T. Ashok Pai vs- CIT, Bangalore, (2007) 7 SCC 162 which precedents prescribe that only palpably perverse conclusions pertaining to the factual matrix should be interfered with by the High Court. The concurrent findings of the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT are not, in our opinion, pervers…

ITA No.353/2009 vs. Three-N Products Pvt. Ltd

ITA/185/2009HC Delhi20 May 2009
Section 132Section 133ASection 158BSection 260ASection 69A

…s- Ravi Kant Jain, [2001] 250 ITR 141 that undisclosed income not determined on the basis of material gathered in a Search cannot justify the ordering of a Block Assessment. 4. It will be useful to recall that in CIT ?vs- Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433 their Lordships considered it valid to take into account the contents of a Diary found as a result of a Search. Unlike the loose slips found in Ravi Kumar, in an enquiry founded on the recovered Diary it emerged that Rupees 5,99,00,000 was undisclosed income. In other words, the Diary in the said case was a material which was the star…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. D.S.Promoters & Developers P. Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs

ITA/654/2008HC Delhi01 May 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 22Section 260ASection 28

…ve of an action, opinion or conclusion which could not reasonably be arrived at. Even an incorrect conclusion would be perverse or mala fide only if it is patently deliberate. Very recently, this view finds reiteration in CIT –vs- Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433(SC) where their Lordships have observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with a finding of fact which was not perverse. In CIT –vs- P. Mohanakala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 the Supreme Court has held that the concurrent findings of fact, predicated on material available on the record, cannot constitute questions of law much less subst…

Sri T. Ashok Pai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002747-002747 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 271(1)(C)

…rt, it is well known, should not ordinarily disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. Question of law should generally arise only accepting the finding of fact to be correct. 10. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433, this Court observed thus : "The above two judgments indicate that the question as to whether payment made by the company is for the benefit of the assessee is a question of fact. In this case, the Tribunal has concluded that the payment routed through MKF and MKI was for the benefit of the assessee. This was a finding of fact. It was no…