CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia

177 ITR 393High Court1989#2159 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.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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-OSection 115QSection 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 139Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 115qaccumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)dividend distribution taxbeneficial ownerbusiness expediencystatement under section 132(4)commercial expediencysection 132(4)first appeal

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia

Chamanlal Awtaney, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3222/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…

DCIT Cir-1(1), Jamshedpur vs. Shri Anil Roy, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Partha Sarathi Paul, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 2(22)

…sale consideration as part performance of agreement cannot be said deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)( e) of the IT Act, 1961. The assesse also relied on similar decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M Kaparia ( 1999) 177 ITR 393 (Bombay). In the case of CIT vs. Pradip Kumar Malhotra, the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court held that ‘ we are of the opinion that the phrase “by way of advance or loan” appearing in sub-section ( e) must be construed to mean those advance or loans which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dream Bake Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 242/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40S(2)(b)

…definition of deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) In favour of: Assessee Case referred to CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd (2008) 220 CTR (Del) 475 (2008) 8 DTR (Del) 108 (2008) 173 Taxman 407 (Del) CIT vs. Nagiindas M Kapadia (1989) 75 CTR (Bom) 161 : (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom) Navinit Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K.Sen AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) Counsel appeared: ITA No.242 & CO 43/Kol/2018 A.Y.2013-14 DCIT Cir-10(1), Kol vs. M/s Dream Bake Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal for the Appellant. M.P. Rastogi with K.N. Ahuja for the Respondent JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J: This appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (…

Nutun Malpani, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2029/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Ajai, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 34

…he same cannot be called a device more so a colorable device to invoke the deeming provisions. It is well settled that business and commercial transactions do not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e). (318 ITR 476 Raj). CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom). 'Loans or Advances', u/s 2(22)(e) can be applied to 'Loans' or 'Advances' simplicitor and not to those transactions carried out in course of business as such. If this purpose is kept in mind then, the word 'Advance' has to be read in conjunction with the word 'Loan'. Usually attributes of a loan are that it involves positive act of lending…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…d to give effect to a commercial transaction would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The assessee-company also relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) in which it was held that “the words “Loans or Advances” can be applied to loans or advances simplicitor and not to those transactions carried-out in the course of business.” 20. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee-company and noted that even if it is considered that these advances are business advances, S…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…d to give effect to a commercial transaction would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The assessee-company also relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) in which it was held that “the words “Loans or Advances” can be applied to loans or advances simplicitor and not to those transactions carried-out in the course of business.” 20. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee-company and noted that even if it is considered that these advances are business advances, S…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…d to give effect to a commercial transaction would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The assessee-company also relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) in which it was held that “the words “Loans or Advances” can be applied to loans or advances simplicitor and not to those transactions carried-out in the course of business.” 20. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee-company and noted that even if it is considered that these advances are business advances, S…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…d to give effect to a commercial transaction would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The assessee-company also relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) in which it was held that “the words “Loans or Advances” can be applied to loans or advances simplicitor and not to those transactions carried-out in the course of business.” 20. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee-company and noted that even if it is considered that these advances are business advances, S…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dream Bake (P) Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1878/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Dream Bake (P) Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 296, Kalu Khan Road, Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkat-154 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 1189 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Ghosh, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 19-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.07.2016, Passed In Case No.1839/Cit(A)/4/Circle-10(1)/Kol/14-15, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Making Section 2(22)(E) Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹90,98,080/- In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Sec. 2(22)(E) Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹2,42,00,000/- In Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2015. Learned Departmental Representative Invites Our Attention To The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reading As Under:- “5. Ground No.2 This Ground Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ao In Making Addition Of ₹2,42,00,000/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act. This Matte Is Discussed From Para 4 To Para 4.3

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

…definition of deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) In favour of: Assessee Case referred to CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd (2008) 220 CTR (Del) 475 (2008) 8 DTR (Del) 108 (2008) 173 Taxman 407 (Del) CIT vs. Nagiindas M Kapadia (1989) 75 CTR (Bom) 161 : (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom) Navinit Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K.Sen AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) Counsel appeared: Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal for the Appellant. M.P. Rastogi with K.N. Ahuja for the Respondent JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J: This appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is preferred by the Revenue against the order dt. 9th May, 200…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Rajmal Lakhichand

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 832/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…stitute deemed dividend. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Delhi); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393 (Bom.); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Lakshmikutty Narayanan, 105 ITD 558 (Cochin-Trib.); 3.5 The ld. AR further placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12-06-2017 to contend that trade advances in the nature of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.6 The ld. AR contended that without prejudice to his submissions alread…

M/S. Rajmal Lakhichand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…stitute deemed dividend. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Delhi); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393 (Bom.); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Lakshmikutty Narayanan, 105 ITD 558 (Cochin-Trib.); 3.5 The ld. AR further placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12-06-2017 to contend that trade advances in the nature of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.6 The ld. AR contended that without prejudice to his submissions alread…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Prasidh Leasing Ltd

ITA/637/2004HC Delhi20 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 133ASection 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…the case, as brought out in the preceding sub paragraphs, the contention of the learned AR of the appellant company that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393, deserves to be upheld. In the said judgement is has beheld that advance towards purchases cannot be brought in the ambit of Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, it is clear that the AO erred in taxing Rs. 6,16,00,000/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The appellant company is entitled to a relief of Rs. 6,16,00,000/-.‖ 7. The ITAT co…

ITO, Ward-1, Kurnool vs. S.V. Mohan Reddy, Kurnool

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 483/Hyd/2016 & C.O. No. 32/Hyd/16 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, vs. S.V. Mohan Reddy, Kurnool. Ward – 1, Kurnool. PAN – AJYPS 6575M Appellant Respondent/Cross Objector Revenue by: Smt. S. Praveena Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Date of hearing: 21/11/2017 Date of pronouncement: 24/01/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A), Kurnool, dated 12/01/2016 for the AY 2011-…

Varusai Mohamed, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 662/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…Board resolution dated 30th June, 2008. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd 318 ITR 476 and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393. She thus argued that the advance received by ITA No.662 /Mds/2017. :- 6 -: the assessee from the Company stood outside the preview of Sec.2(22) (e) of the Act. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of G. Sreevidya (supra…

Fasulunnisa, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 661/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…Board resolution dated 30th June, 2008. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd 318 ITR 476 and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393. She thus argued that the advance received by ITA No.661 /Mds/2017. :- 6 -: the assessee from the Company stood outside the preview of Sec.2(22) (e) of the Act. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of G. Sreevidya (supra…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Bhavnagar vs. Shri Yogendra Ratilal Sheth, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA

ITA 1791/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.R
Section 142(1)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ither loan nor advance as contemplated u/s.2(22)(e) of the "Act". 3. Reliance is place on following authorities:- • NH SECURITIES LTD v. DCIT(2007) 11 SOT 302(BOM) • ACIT v. Global Agencies (P) Ltd. (2005) 87 TTJ 1086 (DEL) • CIT v. NAGINDAS M. KAPADIA (1989) 177 ITR 393 (BOM) • CIT v. CREATIVE DYEING & PRINTING (P) LTD. 318 ITR476 DEL Copies of the authorities are filed herewith for your kind reference.” 2.3 Against the above reply, the assessee vide notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 13/12/2010 was asked to furnish following details: 1. ITA No. 1791/Ahd/2014 & CO No.249/Ahd/2014 (in ITA No.1791/Ahd/2014) Asst.…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/s Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) PAN No.:-AAJCS2674N Shri V. Justin-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri…

Ravindra R. Fotedar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6778/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2010 – 2011 Ravindra R Fotedar Acit 10(2) 7 Bharat Tirth Society, Mumbai Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan Aacpf1616R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)

…ul Engineering Udyog [2015] 228 Taxman 295 (All). 9. This view has been taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Delhi). Similar view has been taken by the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia, 177 ITR 393 (Bom) in which it was held that advance received to purchase the material for the purpose of executing the job work entrusted to the assessee is a trade advance and will not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e). In the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has taken the view that the…

ACIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Balasaheb S Tupe, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1401/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mr. Balasaheb S Tupe Circle 26(1) D 153/154 Solaris, I Opp L&T Vs. R.N. 508 C-10 5Th Floor, Bkc Gate Saki Vihar Rd, Powai Bandra(E) Mumbai-51 Mumbai-400 072 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacpt5952E Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr .. Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Assessee By & Shri Rahul Hakani Date Of Hearing .. 08-03-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 08-03-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

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

…and the company M/s B T Infosys P Ltd and purely current account transactions". Mr. Balasaheb S Tupe; A.Y:10-11 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the case of Nagindas M Kapadia (177 ITR 393) relied on is distinguishable since in the case of the assessee the company had advanced goods of Rs. 75,48,975/- and there was opening debit balance also in the books of the company of Rs. 33,16,000/-." 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay…

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…he benefit of loan 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 (Bom) 161 : (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom) relied on. Loan advanced by company to shareholder in compensation of shareholder mortgaging his immovable property for enabling company to secure bank loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e).” COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CREATIVE DYEING & PRINTING (P) LTD. whereby the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2010) 229 CTR 0250…