How many judgments cite CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia (177 ITR 393), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(22)(e), Section 115-O, Section 115Q, Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 153A.

CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia

177 ITR 393High Court1989#2161 most cited

What is CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia authority for?

Trade advances arising from genuine commercial transactions are not considered deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The provision applies only to payments in the nature of dividend, not bona fide business transactions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia · Nagindas M. Kapadia · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · trade advances · commercial transactions · business expediency · accumulated profits · Bombay High Court · 177 ITR 393

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 115-O Section 115Q Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 153A Section 139 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 115q accumulated profits section 2(22)deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)dividend distribution tax beneficial owner business expediency statement under section 132(4)commercial expediency section 132(4)first appeal

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…view has been expressed by various Courts in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay), JamunaVernekarVs CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka),CIT Vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H),and CIT VsAtul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad). This legal position is further fortified from the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 (Pg No.77 of PB-I), where it has been clarified that trade advances in the nature of…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. AVINASH KNATILAL JAIN, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.26/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 ACIT, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. PAN : ACWPJ9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare : Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 04.10.20…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI, AGRA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 137/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…2009) 318 ITR 476, Hon'ble Delhi High Court decided the issue on same lines and when Revenue went in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18197 of 2010 was dismissed. Further in case of CIT vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided the issue in favor of the appellant. Similar decisions have also been delivered in following cases: (i) Jamuna Vernekar v. Dy. CIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 380 (Kar.) (ii) Bagmane Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 120 (Kar.) (iii) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) 7.…

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…reative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 21. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) sub…

MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1059/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ve Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476\n(Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 80-82)\n3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi)\n(PB-I: Pg 83)\n4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88).\n5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB-\nI: Pg 89)\n6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB-\nI: Pg 90-91)\n7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I:\nPg 92-93).\n8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569\n(Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96).\n21. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the\norder of LD.CI…

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1052/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…reative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 38. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) subm…

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1050/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…reative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 38. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) subm…

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…reative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 14. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) subm…

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…reative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 80-82) 3) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 83) 4) CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi) (PB-I: Pg 84-88). 5) CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay) (PB- I: Pg 89) 6) Jamuna Vernekar vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka) (PB- I: Pg 90-91) 7) CIT vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H) (PB-I: Pg 92-93). 8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 14. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) subm…

VISHNU AGGARWAL,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ved and which is not the sum, which it otherwise would have distributed as dividend, cannot be brought within the deeming provision of treating such ‘Advance’ as deemed dividend.” Similar view has been taken by Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (BOM). The CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12.06.2017 also supports the view canvassed by the Ld. AR. The facts available on record do suggest that there has been business transaction between the proprietary concern, M/s. Shri Hari Metals and the Company, M/s. Singhal Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. It may not be out of place to mention that the decision (su…

BINEETA SINGH,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3373/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Bineeta Singh, The Acit Circle 5(1), Flat No. 126, Aspen Greens, New Delhi Nirwana Country, Gurgaon, Vs. Haryana 122003 Pan Aqeps3259D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate

Section 147Section 2(22)Section 250

…vance' but was given to protect 'business interest of the company. Hence, the provisions of Sec 2(22)(e) were not applicable. The Court relied on Delhi HC decision in Creating Dying and Printing P Ltd (318 IT 476) and Bombay HC decision in Nagindas M Kapadia (177 ITR 393). Therefore addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Therefore the same may kindly be deleted. 8. On careful consideration of rival submissions first of all we may point out that before the authorities below it was contended that as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act, any loan or advance by closely held company…

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

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

…e benefit of loan7;as deemed dividend within the meaning of s. 2(22)(e).—CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P) Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (Del) 250 : (2009) 30 DTR (Del) 143 : (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del) and CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia (1989) 75 CTR (Born) 161: (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Born) relied on.” 10.4 Further, same view was taken by Ahmedabad bench in the case of Krishna Coil Cutters Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), wherein it was held as under:- “9.2 In this factual backdrop, the CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and held that Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in the peculiar facts. On a p…

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

ITA 609/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pamod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

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

…tively holding that, the advances paid to appellant by JREPL, in excess of entitlement, constituted dividend income u/s 2(22,)(e). In this connection, reliance is also placed, on the Bombay High Court, decision in the case of CIT vs Nagindas M. Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Page Nos 74). 4,6. Alternatively and without prejudice to above claim, appellant would like to submit that, if at all such deemed dividend income was to be assessed in the hands of appellant, it should have been calculated with reference to the accumulated profits, being opening balance of Profit & Loss Account of Rs. 46,36,756/-, @ 34% thereof…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. LATE SHRI NAREN RAJAN, REP.BY L/H SMT. PADMINI V.R, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 2(22)(e)

…he parties, then such payments cannot be treated as loan or advance and the money so received cannot be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act." b. The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nagindas M.Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom) has held that "advance received to purchase material for the purpose executing the job work entrusted to 19 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 the assessee is a trade advance and will not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e)." c. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ambassador Travels P Ltd in [2009] 318 I…

PADMINI RAJAN, L/R OF LATE (SHRI) NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1002/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 2(22)(e)

NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 743/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 2(22)(e)

EXOTICA HOUSING & INFRSTRUCTURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 8(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R

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

…rt in the case of Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del.), CIT vs., Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Del.), CIT vs., Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) in which it was held that “the amounts advanced for business transaction will not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The Tribunal following the same decisions as well as decision in earlier year in the case of M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others (supra) held that “the amo…

SHRI VIJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 825/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Kumar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahela (JCIT)

Section 2(22)(e)

…78 (Pun. & Har. HC) ITO vs. Smt. Gayatri Chakraborty (2016) 45 ITR (Trib) 197 (ITAT – Kolkata) CIT vs. Raj Kumar 2009 (181 Taxman 155) 4 Shri Vijay Agarwal, Jaipur. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (173 Taxman 407) CIT vs. Nagain Das M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that in the account of the assessee with the company all the entries are receipts and repayments of the money which do not reflect any business transaction carried out by the assessee on behalf of the said company. Therefore, the transaction of receiving the money from the company and the…

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…s of any moment; the Hon’ble Court clarifying that the nature shall have to be examined with reference to each individual payment, i.e., whether it creates a debt or is in discharge of an earlier one. No wonder, then, that in CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bom), the advances received against purchases by the assessee share-holder were ignored from the running account and only the balance amounts, not relatable to business, representing only financial transactions, so isolated, were regarded as dividend u/s. 2(22)(e), upholding the Tribunal’s view. A ‘loan’, according to Black's Law Dictionary, fif…

CHAMANLAL AWTANEY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3223/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3222 & 3223/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Shri Chamanlal Awtaney The Asst. Commissioner of 2001, E Wing, ‘XX’ Clusive, Income Tax, Circle 15(3), Whispering Palms, Building Mumbai Vs. No, 9, Lokhandwala Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 101, Maharashtra (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. ADJPA065…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3