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#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.

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-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

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5194/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negia C I T – 25(2) Shri Mahesh K. Shah Room No. 108, 1St Floor B-15, Paras Darshan C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (East) B.K.C., Bandra (East) Mumbai 400066 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaips6406N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 69C

…s again based on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ICT v/s Creative Dying 11 Shri Mahesh K. Shah and Printing Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Nagin Das M. Kapaida, [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bom.), we affirm the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, grounds raised by the Department are dismissed.” 5.3.2 In view of the legal and factual matrix, being identical to those in A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee’s own case, and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Pradeep Kumar Malhtora (2…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Magnum Clothing (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1408/KOL/2015[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 2(22)(e)

…against the consideration for the sale of the flats is out of the purview of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In holding so we are putting our reliance in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT- v. Nagindas M Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom) wherein Hon'ble court has held that only the payments and advances to the extent of accumulated profits could be treated as loans or advances within the meaning of Sec.2(22)(e) and this was what the Tribunal had done and, I.T.A. No. 1408/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Page 4 of 4 therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that on…

M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)

…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…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Gharda Chemicals Latd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar

Section 145ASection 254(1)

…trade advances given to the assessee by C could not be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)." 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in fact followed the principles established by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393. The same principles were also reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd. 318 ITR 376. In view of these principles, we are of the view that the commercial transactions between two companies could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Accordingly on merits also we find…

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 9(1), Mumbai

ITA 5348/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. Pan: Aaacg 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8376/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8758/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Dcit, Circle-9(1) Vs. M/S.Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 018. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Debashish Chandra Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal Bohra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal BohraFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra

Section 254(1)

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 6321/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Chand, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 80H

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Chand, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 80H

ITO, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata vs. Magnum Clothing (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1352/KOL/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2002-03 Ito, Ward-10(2), 3 V/S. Magnum Clothing (P) Ltd. Govt. Place (West), C/O Chopra & Company, Kolkata-700 001 Chartered Accountants, Chopra House, 133, Canning Street, Kolkata-700 001 [Pan No.Aaccm 0783 F]

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…against the consideration for the sale of the flats is out of the purview of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In holding so we are putting our reliance in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nagindas M Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom) wherein Hon'ble court has held that only the payments and advances to the extent of accumulated profits could be treated as loans or advances within the meaning of Sec.2(22)(e) and this was what the Tribunal had done and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that only Rs.28,500 and Rs.10,000 could be treated as deemed dividend in th…

Taurian Engineering P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3129/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 3129/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Taurian Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Jt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 302-A, Poonam Chamberes, (Osd)-4(3), फनधभ/ 3Rd Floor, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400018 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcm8782H (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri J P Bairagra प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri R A Dhyani सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 08.03.2016 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4.2.2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Upholding Of The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,09,75,000/- Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani

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

…h fresh orders fulfilled in the next financial year. The ld vehemently submitted that trading advances wrongly treated as deemed dividend. In support of his arguments the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : a) CIT V/s Nagindas M Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom); b) Bombay Oil Industries Ltd V/s DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383(Mum); c) CIT V/s Ambassador Travells (P) Ltd ((2009) 318 ITR 376) (Del); d) NH Securities Ltd V/s DCIT (2007) 11 SOT 302 (Mumba); e) CIT V/s Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462(Del); f) CIT V/s P K Badiani (1970) 76 ITR 369) (Bom); g) Anilkumar Agarwal V/s ITO (2011)138 TTJ 175) Mum); and h)…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Dina Sudhir Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4184/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Uday B JakkeFor Respondent: Dr.P.Daniel

Section 2(22)(e)

…tatute must take colour from the purport and object for which it is used. The principle of purposive interpretation, therefore, should be taken recourse to.” A close examination of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nagindas M Kapadia (1989)(177 ITR 393) would show that the court excluded from the ambit of “dividend”, monies which the assessee had received towards purchases. In our view, both the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have correctly appreciated this aspect of the matter in the said judgment of the Bombay High Court. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Bomb…

ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vikramditya Kukreja, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-2008) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -19(3)(4), Shri Vikramaditya Kukreja, 1001, 11Th Floor, 29 Sea, Piramal Chamber, Vs. World, Room No.304, Perry Cross Road, Lalbaug, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“ F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-2008) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -19(3)(4), Shri Vikramaditya Kukreja, 1001, 11th Floor, 29 Sea, Piramal Chamber, Vs. World, Room No.304, Perry Cross Road, Lalbaug, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AJFPK8837P अऩीरधथी ओय से / Revenue by Shri Vishwas Jadhav प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by Shri Naresh Kumar…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd

ITA/250/2009HC Delhi22 Sept 2009

Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…nterest and the said interest may be received by the company; but the main object underlying the loan is to avoid payment of tax”. 8. The Tribunal has also referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom) in which it was held that business transactions are outside the purview of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the said case, the company in which Kapadia was having substantial interest had paid various amount to Kapadia. The Tribunal had 2009:DHC:4002-DB ITA 250/2009 Page 7 found that Kapadia had business transactions with the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Raj Kumar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1130/2007HC Delhi14 May 2009

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr S.K. Khurana, Advocate

Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…tion 2(22)(e) of the Act did not bring within its ambit advances received against future supply of goods. In support of the last submission assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Nagindas M. Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393. The assessee also tried to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court with which he was confronted, that is, in the case of Miss P. Sarada vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 444. 2009:DHC:2079-DB 3.4 The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced that the money received by the assessee was in the nature of an advance received by CEI from its…