CIT v. National Travel Services

347 ITR 305High Court2012#5231 most cited

What is CIT v. National Travel Services authority for?

The Supreme Court, in reviewing CIT v. National Travel Services, referred the issue of whether a shareholder must be both registered and beneficial for reconsideration by a larger bench.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. National Travel Services · shareholder · registered shareholder · beneficial shareholder · deemed dividend · section 2(22)(e) · larger bench · Supreme Court

Also reported as

14 Taxmann.com 14202 Taxmann 327
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 47closely held companyaccumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)beneficial ownerdirect tax vivad se vishwasliable to taxsection 56escapement of incomesection 131

Judgments citing CIT v. National Travel Services

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MINAL CONSTRACTORS AND BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…4 (Del) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC). 42 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 16.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of CIT v, National Travel Services [2012] 347 ITR 305 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi Court has taken a contrary view which matter was travelled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Travel Services v. CIT [2018] 401 ITR 154 (SC) has referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute a larger bench for reconsideration of the issue whether the…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…4 (Del) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC). 42 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 16.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of CIT v, National Travel Services [2012] 347 ITR 305 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi Court has taken a contrary view which matter was travelled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Travel Services v. CIT [2018] 401 ITR 154 (SC) has referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute a larger bench for reconsideration of the issue whether the…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MAC QUALITY BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…4 (Del) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC). 42 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 16.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of CIT v, National Travel Services [2012] 347 ITR 305 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi Court has taken a contrary view which matter was travelled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Travel Services v. CIT [2018] 401 ITR 154 (SC) has referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute a larger bench for reconsideration of the issue whether the…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKILANSTRUCTURALS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…4 (Del) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC). 42 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 16.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of CIT v, National Travel Services [2012] 347 ITR 305 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi Court has taken a contrary view which matter was travelled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Travel Services v. CIT [2018] 401 ITR 154 (SC) has referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute a larger bench for reconsideration of the issue whether the…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKUNDA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…4 (Del) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC). 42 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 16.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of CIT v, National Travel Services [2012] 347 ITR 305 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi Court has taken a contrary view which matter was travelled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Travel Services v. CIT [2018] 401 ITR 154 (SC) has referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute a larger bench for reconsideration of the issue whether the…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 vs. M/S WIG INVESTMENT

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…tion falls within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and, hence, was assessable in the hands of the respondent/assessee. 8.7 In support of the assertions above, reliance was placed on the following decisions: CIT vs. National Travel Services (2012) 347 ITR 305; National Travel Services vs. CIT (2018) 3 SCC 95 and Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs. CIT (2017) 3 SCC 574. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:15.01.2024 16:56:57 Signature Not Verified ITA 169/2020 Page 11 of 18 8.8 Lastly, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that it had the power to treat the observation made by CIT(A), that t…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 36(1), NEW DELHI vs. COMMCORP INTERNATIOANL LLP, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4158/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri V.K Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT, Circle 36(1), New M/s Comcorp International LLP, Plot No. 09, 1st floor, Gujranwalan Town, Delhi Delhi vs. 110009 PAN AAHFC 7491 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri V.K Bindal, CA Ms Rinky Sharma, CA For Revenue : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A)-12 New Delhi dated 19.01.2018 for…

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)

…WSIL (borrower) in which the present assessee WPL is having 45.31% and has substantial interest in the borrower company. He relied on the following judgements:- 1) Sarva Equity Pvt. Ltd. 225 ITR 172 (Kar) wherein held that 2) CIT Vs. National Travel Services 347 ITR 305 wherein held 3) CIT Vs. Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 325 ITR 263 wherein held that 4) Gopal & sons (HUF) 77 Taxmann.com 71 (SC) 5) Alagu Sundaram Vs. CIT 252 ITR 893 (SC) wherein held Wep Peripherals Ltd., Bangalore Page 8 of 18 9,2 Accordingly, he submitted in the instant case loan was given to a company in which the assessee is a shareholder and assesse…

PASL WINDTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/AHD/2017[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 2302 & 2366/AHD/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- VS Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCA 3022G Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Respondent by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONCQUEST LABOROTORIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4944/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4944/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2011-12 DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), VS. M/S ONCQUEST LABORATORIES NEW DELHI LTD. 4TH FLOOR, PUNJABI BHAWAN, 10, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AAAC09860B) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by : Sh. Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR. Assessee by : Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.05.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grou…

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIMPLEX RENEWABLE RESOURCES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 751/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Dcit-8(2)(1) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 M.K. Road 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.112/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of Ita No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-8(2)(1) बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg M.K. Road Vs. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/C.O.) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Chaudhury Arun Kumar, Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil Lohia, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘Act’], Dividend Includes Any Payment Of Any Sum, By A Company

For Appellant: Shri Anil Lohia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhury Arun Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…sessing Officer treated the amount of loan as ‘deemed dividend’ and added the same to the income of the assessee. While doing so, Ld. AO, inter-alia, placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in Ld. CIT V/s National Travel Services [14 Taxmann.com 14]. Upon further appeal, Ld. first appellate authority deleted the additions by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. [supra]. 2.2 Aggrieved, the revenue is before us with following grounds of appeal: - (i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,42,00,000/- u/…

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Oct 2018AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member A.Y.: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 4(1), vs. M/s Roger Industries Ltd., Agra. 8B/7A, Dev Nagar, Bye Pass Road, Agra PAN AADCR 7954 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Deependra Mohan, Advocate Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 11.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2018 ORDER Per Dr.Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This is the Department’s appeal filed against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Agra, in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09, raising following gr…

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

…from the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which is not permissible. Further relying on the Finance Minister’s speech, the provisions of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. National Travel Services reported in 347 ITR 305, the Ld.AO invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition of Rs.1.40 crores in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd., & others which was further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhur Housing &…

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

…from the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which is not permissible. Further relying on the Finance Minister’s speech, the provisions of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. National Travel Services reported in 347 ITR 305, the Ld.AO invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition of Rs.1.40 crores in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd., & others which was further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhur Housing &…

VITAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1184/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sankaranarayanan, CA
Section 2(22)(e)

…e) is applicable only to shareholders of the company, based on the scope and intention of the legislature provided in the Finance Act, 1987 and also by relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs National Travel Services (2012) 347 ITR 305& the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Print Wave Services Private Limited (ITA No 747 of 2014) was rejected by the AO for the reason that the department is on appeal against the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the jurisdictional High Court’s decision has not reached finality and h…

SH. HARISH KANWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed for statistical

ITA 529/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 529/DEL/2017 A.Y. : 2011-12 SH. HARISH KANWAR, ITO, WARD 3(4), M-259, GREATER KAILASH-II, VS. NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 048 (PAN: AABPK1035G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Department by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 12.10.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts…

RAMANI INVESTMENTS,SALEM vs. DCIT, SALEM

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

ITA 81/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.81/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Ramani Investments, The Deputy Commissioner Of 3/340, Rajaji Road, V. Income Tax, Salem – 636 007. Circle 1, Salem. Pan : Aadfr 3031 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…ares of M/s Ramani Automotive Pvt. Ltd. was made by the partnership firm or by the partners in the individual capacity and thereafter decide in accordance with law after considering the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. National Travel Services (2012) 347 ITR 305. 4. We have heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that an identical issue was considered by this Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 and the issue was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he has no objection to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing…

PRESTRESS WIRE INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6467/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi, D.S. Kabra-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6467/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Prestress Wire…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUBRATA ROY

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

…e benefit of the assessee. Therefore, the said funds were not repayment of loans, they were for purchase of 9 per cent. RBI Relief Bonds by the respondent.” The revenue’s counsel also relied on Commissioner of Income Tax v National Travel Services [2012] 347 ITR 305 and urged that in similar circumstances, partners of a firm were held to have received advances and subjected to tax under Section 2 (22) (e). 14. Counsel for the assessee urged this court to uphold the ITAT’s majority view. He submitted that once there was a factual finding with respect to absence of nexus between the amounts payable to SI…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-I vs. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PVT. LTD.

ITA/57/2015HC Delhi09 Feb 2015
Section 153Section 2Section 201

…ce of compelling reasons, this Court should follow the ruling in NHK Japan (supra). 5. So far as the question on merits is concerned, learned counsel relies upon the Division Bench ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Travel Service, (2012) 347 ITR 305 (Del) and CIT Vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 to say that the requirement of Section 2 (22) (e) is fulfilled only if both the pre-conditions are met with. 6. It is evident from the above discussion that the assessee was sought to be proceeded against Section 201 as one in default, after the period of four years. This Court is consc…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2