CIT v. Raj Kumar

318 ITR 462High Court2009#891 most cited

What is CIT v. Raj Kumar authority for?

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Raj Kumar · 318 ITR 462 · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · trade advances · commercial transactions · loans and advances · accumulated profits · Delhi High Court · not deemed dividend

Also reported as

181 Taxmann 155220 CTR 63923 DTR 304

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 68Section 115-O
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115qsection 44afsection 131(1)(d)accumulated profitssection 142(2)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 2(22)section 55asection 38section 142asection 131(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj Kumar

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune vs. Sachin Govind Apte, Pune

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 54F

…Empro Exports (P.) Ltd. was not such to fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The present appeal is therefore dismissed.” 9.6 Ld.AR for the Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Rajkumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 wherein, vide order dated 14.05.2009 Hon’ble High Court held as under : “10.9 Keeping the aforesaid rule in mind we are of the opinion that the word 'advance' which appears in the company of the word 'loan' could only mean such advance which carries with it an obligation of 11 ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] repayment. Trade advance which are in the n…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…taken in the ordinary course of business do not attract invocation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We have also noted that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Parle Plastic Ltd. 332 ITR 63, of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 approving the above hypothesis. 13. Upon consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly analyzed the facts of the case in the light of judicial precedent covering the matter. We are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua his decision to direct the ld. AO deletion of…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…taken in the ordinary course of business do not attract invocation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We have also noted that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Parle Plastic Ltd. 332 ITR 63, of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 approving the above hypothesis. 13. Upon consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly analyzed the facts of the case in the light of judicial precedent covering the matter. We are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua his decision to direct the ld. AO deletion of…

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

…ITA No. 4505/Mum/2013] dated 27.04.2018 ⮚ Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT [159 ITD 822 (Mum.)] ⮚ Ishwar Chand Jindal v. ACIT [171 TTJ 436 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [62 taxmann.com 213 (SC)] ⮚ CIT v. Raj Kumar [318 ITR 462 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Atul Engineering Udyog [51 taxmann.com 569 (All.)] 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee further submits that he would like to bring to the notice with outstanding amount shown in the books of assessee on 31.03.2015 were not only paid back as on 31.03.2017 but ledger account of both the subsidiaries became a debit balance and was reflec…

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

…ITA No. 4505/Mum/2013] dated 27.04.2018 ⮚ Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT [159 ITD 822 (Mum.)] ⮚ Ishwar Chand Jindal v. ACIT [171 TTJ 436 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [62 taxmann.com 213 (SC)] ⮚ CIT v. Raj Kumar [318 ITR 462 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Atul Engineering Udyog [51 taxmann.com 569 (All.)] 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee further submits that he would like to bring to the notice with outstanding amount shown in the books of assessee on 31.03.2015 were not only paid back as on 31.03.2017 but ledger account of both the subsidiaries became a debit balance and was reflec…

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)

…ividend under section 2(22)(e). [Para 12]” 20. Similar 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 h…

Ponnamparambath Ashique, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1) Tps, Kozhikode

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

ITA 606/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ponnamparambath Ashique .......... Appellant Koyenco House, West Hill, Kozhikode 673005 [Pan: Acmpa5569N] Vs. Acit, Circle- 1(1) & Tps, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19.06.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also Managing Director Og M/S. Platino Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Return Of Income For Ay 2010-11 Was Filed On 17.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 25,18,810/-. There Was No Scrutiny Assessment. Subsequently The Ao Received Information That The Appellant Is Holding Shares Of 25%

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…owards business purposes of the company is a commercial advance and, therefore, it cannot be terms as deemed dividend and placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) CIT v. Arvind Kumar Jain [2011] (9) TMI 363 Delhi High Court ii) CIT v. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] (10 TMI 41, Allahabad High Court The appellant also filed additional evidences in support of this submission. 6. Having regard to the circumstances made in the application for admission of additional evidences, it is a fit case for admitting the additional evidences. Therefore, we remand the matte…

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1808/Del/2023 And 2983, 2984 And 2985/DEL/2015 [Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 And 2007-08] Shri Chetan Seth, Plot No.14, LCS, Sector-B-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 PAN-AOLPS2992A Appellant Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(3), Vs New Delhi Respondent Appellant by Respondent by Shri Arun Kishore, CA & Shri Alok Suri, CA Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 25.06.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH K…

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)

…d [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative 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…

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

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)

…d [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative 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…

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)

…d [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative 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…

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)

…d [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative 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…

Raj Hemant Shroff, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 986/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Hemant Shroff Acit-6(1)(1), Mumbai 11, Vallabh Apartments, Bhulabhai Vs Desai Road Breach Candy, Mumbai-400036. Pan: Aacps 5875 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…1 taxmann.com 569 (Allhabad HC), CIT vs Creative Dyeing & Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Delhi HC), VIT vs M/s. Critive dyeing & Printing P. Ltd. (CC 8558/2010)(SC), PCIT vs Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 140 taxmann.com 33 (SC), CIT vs Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462 (Delhi HC), Smt. Jamuna Vemekar vs DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka), Circular No. 19/2017 by CBDT on the proposition that when the amount was given for business purpose of the company, the same would not fall within the definition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the case of the assessee as discussed supra, we find that transacti…

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)

…d [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative 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…

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)

…d [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh) (PB-I: Pg 78-79). 2) CIT vs. Creative 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…

Shreekant Ray, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Bhandary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shreekant Ray, ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata, C/o Subash Agarwal & Bamboo Villa, 169, Associates, A.J.C. Bose Road, Advocates Siddha Gibson, Vs Kolkata - 700014 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 (PAN: AGOPR8766J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Nitish Bhandary, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHR…

Smt. Rinku Chakraborthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1474/BANG/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Shambu Sharma, H, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)
Section 2(22)(e)

…the meaning of the provision. The word 'loan' means anything lent specially money on interest whereas, deposit means a sum of money paid to secure an article at service etc" 7.8 Likewise, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Raj Kumar [2009] 181 Taxman 155/318 ITR 462 observed that Trade advances which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 7.9 In view of the above, we hold that the transaction in dispute was a commercial transaction and therefore the same is outside the ambit of the prov…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jabalpur vs. M/S. Vijan Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Jabalpur

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

ITA 38/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 37 & 38/Jab/2020 (A.Y: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Vijan Hotel Pvt Ltd, 291, Ramnath Bldg, Khasra No114/2 & Napier Town, Part Of 107, Jablapur-482001, Mandla Road, Tilhari Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur-482001. Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Abzpn0126C Appellant .. Respondent C.O No.02 & 03/Jab/2021 (A.Y: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vijan Hotel Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Khasra No114/2 & 291, Ramnath Bldg, Part Of 107, Napier Town, Mandla Road, Tilhari Jablapur-482001, Jabalpur-482001. Madhyapradesh. Madhyapradesh Pan/Gir No. : Abzpn0126C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondentby Shri, Saad Kidwai. Cit Dr Respondent/Appellantby Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca. Ar Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

Section 131(1)Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

…investment is spread over many years. As per appellant, DVO should have adopted MPPWD rates after making certain adjustment for the construction done by the assessee in different assessment years. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v/s Raj Kumar 182 ITR 436 (All) has held that value of property under PWD rates is much lower than the cost of value of property as per CPWD rates. Similarly, in the case of CIT v/s Prem kumara Murdiya 296 ITR 508 (Raj) wherein hon'ble court refused to interfere in the order of ITAT holding that appropriate to be taken into consideration would be PWD rates and holding dif…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Mangalore vs. Shri.P.M.A.Razak, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1637/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Saravanan, D.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, A.R
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA No.1637/Bang/2016 Shri P.M.A. Razak, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri P.M.A. Razak HC-12, His Grace Apartments Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Martin Paes Road Central Circle-II Vs. Hat Hill Mangalore Mangalore PAN NO : ABYPR9231M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Saravanan, D.R. Respondent by : Smt. Sheetal, A.R. Date of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by r…

Om Prakash Bishu, Kuchaman City vs. DCIT, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

…in the case of CIT Central, Jaipur vs. Ashok Kumar Govadia in ITA No. 82/2010 has expressed a view that PWD rates have to be allowed for the properties constructed in the State of Rajasthan. A reference to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar (1990) 182 ITR 436 (All.) was made in this regard. It was held that placing of rates of PWD is a question of fact which depends on various factors such as location of property, quality of construction and the material used etc. In this case, the ld. CIT (A), allowed a general rebate of 20% which was found to be excessive and irrelevant to the material on record. Ac…