CIT v. Parle Plastic Ltd.

332 ITR 63High Court2011#4340 most cited

What is CIT v. Parle Plastic Ltd. authority for?

A loan or advance received by an assessee cannot be treated as such for the relevant previous year if it was not advanced by the lender during that year, even if there was an opening credit balance.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Parle Plastic Ltd. · 332 ITR 63 · section 2(22)(e) · loan or advance · relevant previous year · opening credit balance · actual disbursement

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 2(22)(e)

Issues it is cited on

section 10personindiatotal incomeinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Parle Plastic Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gd Goenka Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6553/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., N- Acit, Circle-10(2), New Delhi 85, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacg0865A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 (In Ita No. 6553/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…enka Tourism Corporation Limited as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. 15. The learned CIT-(A) deleted the addition in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Parley Plastic C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 Limited, (2011) 332 ITR 63. The relevant part of the impugned order of the learned CIT-(A) is reproduced as under: “6. Regarding the addition of Rs.1,12,05,965/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) I find that though the AO has given elaborate reasons for doing so, the appellant has been able to justify that why this addition should not have been made. The appellant's case is c…

Lokesh R. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6921/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 2(22)(e)

…above, the Ld A.R submitted that the financing activity constitutes substantial part of its business activities and in this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cit Vs. Parle Plastics Ltd and another (332 ITR 63). In the above said case, the assessee before Hon’ble Bombay High court had incurred loss from other activities and made profit from financing activities. 39% of its total assets as at the yearend and 42% of its total assets as at the beginning of the year consisted of loans advanced by it. Under these set of facts, the Tribunal had held that the…

Bharat N Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4436/MUM/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 1995-96

Bench: Sri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

…o the Advances received from Royal Anti-Biotics & Investments Pvt. Ltd. as the substantial part of business of the said company is borrowing and lending, which view has been upheld by the Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Parle Plastics Ltd. - 332 ITR 63-Bom. 2. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals-9, Mumbai erred in not considering the aforesaid Decision of Hon. Bombay High Court, which is in violation of the law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR-227. 3. On the Facts and…

ITO 20(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanjay B Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7317/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 7317/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 The Ito-20(3)(2), Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 546, Top Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Bhupendra Villa, Jam-E-Jamshed Road,Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 C.O. No. 91/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 7317/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, The Ito-20(3)(2), बनाम/ 546, Top Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bhupendra Villa, Mumbai-400 012 Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagps 5966H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri J.Saravanan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri M.Subramanian

For Appellant: Shri J.SaravananFor Respondent: Shri M.Subramanian
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…see is having a running account with EBPL for the purpose of his business of purchase and sale of shares and therefore the provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e) have no application. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT Vs Parle Plastics Ltd and Another (332 ITR 63) (Bom) and 4 C.O. No. 91/M/2016 in the case of CIT Vs Suraj Dev Dada (367 ITR 78) (P&H) he submits that when the assessee has running account with the company, the provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e) are not attracted unless it is shown that the assessee was misusing funds by taking it out from the company by way of loan or advances instead of dividends t…

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. The Associated Taners

ITTA/271/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

I.T.O WD - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Avro Commercial Company Limited., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed as stated above

ITA 21/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member, and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 21/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 I.T.O Ward 7(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Avro Commercial Company. Ltd PAN: AAECA 1892M (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No. 28/Kol/2013 [ arising out of ITA No. 21/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 M/s. Avro Commercial Company. Ltd Vs. I.T.O Ward 7(1), Kolkata (Cross Objector) (Respondent/Department) For the Appellant/Department: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR For the Cross Objector/Assessee: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, ld.AR Date of Hearin…

ITO WD 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhimji N. Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5605/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: - 2009-10 I.T.O. Wd. 21(1)(1), Room No.603, 6Th Vs.` Shri Bhimji Nanaji Patel Floor, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Prop. M/S. New Infinity 13, Amrapali Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Shopping Centre, V.M. Marg, Vile Mumbai. Parle (W), Mumbai- 400 056. Pan/Gir No. Aaepp1014H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Samir Tekriwal Respondent By Shri P. R. Raiyani

Section 2(22)(e)

…an 20% of the fund deployment of the total funds will be substantial business for the purpose of section 2(22)(e). The ld AR also submitted that assessee’s case also got support from the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Parle Plastics Ltd. 332 ITR 63 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable if the money borrowed by the share holder from the company in the ordinary course of business. The facts of the assessee’s case are squarely covered by the above mentioned decisions as the assessee borrowed money in the ordinary course of business of…