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

Tci Exim P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4195/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4194/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4195/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tci Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Adv., Circle-25(2), E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact8397A Assessee By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ern in which such shareholder is a Member or partner in which he has a substantial interest”. 8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 181, held that "Keeping the aforesaid rule in mind, the word 'advance', which appears in the company of the word 'loan', can only mean such advance which carries with it an obligation of repayment Trade advance, which is in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction, would not fall within the ambit of the provision of s…

Tci Exim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4194/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4194/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4195/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tci Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Adv., Circle-25(2), E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact8397A Assessee By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ern in which such shareholder is a Member or partner in which he has a substantial interest”. 8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 181, held that "Keeping the aforesaid rule in mind, the word 'advance', which appears in the company of the word 'loan', can only mean such advance which carries with it an obligation of repayment Trade advance, which is in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction, would not fall within the ambit of the provision of s…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Late Shri Naren Rajan, Rep.by L/H Smt. Padmini V.R, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…id transaction is not a commercial transaction. 14. Coming back to case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462. The relevant case laws cited b y the ld. AR for the assessee are as under:- “a. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462, held that “if the payments are made by such a company to even its shareholder having substantial interest but d those payments are the result of business transactions between the parties…

Padmini Rajan, L/R of Late (Shri) Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1002/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…id transaction is not a commercial transaction. 14. Coming back to case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462. The relevant case laws cited b y the ld. AR for the assessee are as under:- “a. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462, held that “if the payments are made by such a company to even its shareholder having substantial interest but d those payments are the result of business transactions between the parties…

Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 743/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…id transaction is not a commercial transaction. 14. Coming back to case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462. The relevant case laws cited b y the ld. AR for the assessee are as under:- “a. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462, held that “if the payments are made by such a company to even its shareholder having substantial interest but d those payments are the result of business transactions between the parties…

The DCIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Shri Dipakbhai Chandrakant Shah, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2866/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2866/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Shri Dipakbhai Chandrakant Shah, Anand Circle, Vs. C/O. Artee Roadways, Anand. Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001. Pan: Ajgps8977F

For Appellant: Shri A.L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…the substantial interest, does not constitute the loans and advances as provided under section 2(22)(e) of the Act for holding such loans and advances as deemed dividend. 10.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Raj Kumar [2009] 181 Taxman 155/318 ITR 462 held that "the word 'advance', which appears in company Asstt. Year 2011-12 7 of word 'loan' in section 2(22)(e), can only mean such advance which carries with it an obligation of repayment and that trade advance, which is in nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction, cannot be treated as 'deemed dividend' falling wit…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Today Hotels (Andhra) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2814/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2814/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Today Hotels(Andhra) Pvt. Ltd., 16Th Floor, Statesman Tax, Central Circle-31, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct4697D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…e the revenue that the funds were disbursed by M/s THIPL as part of a commercial transaction of sale of FSI, and not as a loan. • The assessee has relied before the ld. CIT (A) on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 181, wherein is was held that "Keeping the aforesaid rule in mind, the word 'advance', which appears in the company of the word 'loan', can only mean such advance which carries with it an obligation of repayment Trade advance, which is in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction, would not fall within the ambit of the…

Smt Jamuna Vernekar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

ITA/43/2013HC Karnataka10 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260

…ns in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING P. LTD.' (2009) 318 ITR 476 (DELHI), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. 7 AMBASSADOR TRAVELS P. LTD.' (2009) 318 ITR 376 (DELHI), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. RAJ KUMAR' (2009) 318 ITR 462 (DELHI), 'PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' (2011) 338 ITR 538 (CAL), 'PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. VIKAS OBEROI' (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 261 (SC), 'BAGMANE CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE' (2015) 57 TAXMANN.COM 120 (KAR), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. C.R.DASS' (2012)…

Exotica Housing & Infrstructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(4), New Delhi

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” When subsequent year’s appeals was considered by the Tribunal, the assessee relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del.), CIT vs., Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Del.), CIT vs., Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) in which it was held that “the amounts advanced for business transaction will not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act”. The Trib…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shah Investors Home Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2312/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri H. V. Gandhi, A.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…(1)(iii) of the act stands satisfied. On similar facts ITA Nos. 2312 & 2313/Ahd/2017 10 & C.O. Nos. 08 & 09/Ahd/2019 . A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 the claim of the bad debt was allowed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.B. (India) Securities Ltd. 318 ITR 46 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shreyans S. Morakhiya 342 ITR 282 (Bom). The ld. Counsel has also brought to our notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 142/Ahd/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of the assessee has decided the similar issue on identical facts in favour of the assessee. In view of the…

Shri Vijay Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 825/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Kumar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahela (JCIT)
Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ’SMC’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 825/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14. cuke Shri Vijay Agarwal, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. A-154, Mangal Marg, Ward 5(1), Brahmpuri, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AARPA 5210 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Devendra Kumar (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.K. Mahela (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Dat…

Asian Business Conection Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT - 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

…Asian Business Connection Private Limited आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2015-16 M/s. Asian Business DCIT-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal FM-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AAICA1206D Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Ayush Gupta, Adv Date of Hearing 10.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar vs. Sandesh Rajendra Lodha, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 650/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Ahmednagar. बनाम / V/S. Sandesh Rajendra Lodha, Bunglow No.5-6, Maniknagar, Near Anand Rishi Hospital, Ahmednagar-414001. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Abepl6658E Revenue By : Mrs. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 2, Pune Dated 14.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2 Is Contrary To Law & To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,03,61,119/- Made By The Ao U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Grossly Erred, In Ignoring The Finding Of Facts By The Ao That On Verification Of Ledger Of Gepl Appearing In The Books Of Gaepl, That Gaepl Had Sold Aluminum Scrap To Gepl For Which Separate Account Was Maintained. Therefore, The Loan / Advances Given By Gaepl To Gepl Through Separate Account Cannot Be Considered As Trade Advances But Loan / Advances Only.

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 2(22)(e)

…after considering the written submission of the assessee and relying on the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Dev Dada, 367 ITR 78 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Delhi), deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 4.2 onwards of the order of the CIT(A) (relevant parts are extracted in the later parts of this order) are relevant in this regard. 4. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us with the above extracted grounds. 5. Before us,…

ACIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Associated Hospitality Ltd Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1348/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…the assessee. The Appellant, therefore, submitted that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked as there was no loan transaction between appellant and BRIPL. It is seen that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 has dealt with similar issue wherein this issue was elaborately discussed as under: - "Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shows that a payment would acquire the attributes of a dividend within the meaning of the provision if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) the company making the payment is one in which the public are not su…

Madhulika Makkar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6938/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Madhulika Makkar, Vs. Dcit, 5/5 West Patel Nagar, Circle 10(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aavpm9680M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Rohtagi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…tset, relying on the following decisions submitted that these are trade advances and, therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable:- (i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Del); (iii) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT, 338 ITR 538 (Cal); (iv) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 376 (Del); and (v) CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain, 18 taxmann.com 132 (Del). Referring to CBDT Circular No.19/2017 dated 12th June, 2017, he submitted 6. that the CBDT in the said Circular has held that trade advances which are in the na…

Murugan Muttaiah Madasamy, Hyderabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3385/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…ransactions of such agreement pertain to the negotiation of sale price to be received by the assessee from the payments collected by the company. The Tribunal, therefore referred to the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajkumar reported in 318 ITR 462 and held that trade advances made for the commercial transactions would not be hit by section 2(22)(e) of the Act." 15. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Kishorilal Kashila Ramraika vs DCIT(supra) held as under: "19. In the facts of the present case, the amount has been advanced as business advance, wherein the amount was advanced to a jo…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Investors Home Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 3316/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 36(2)Section 40

…en into account in the computation of income and conditions stipulated u/s. 36(2) r.w.s. 36(1)(iii) of the act stands satisfied. On similar facts the claim of the bad debt was allowed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.B. (India) Securities Ltd. 318 ITR 46 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shreyans S. Morakhiya 342 ITR 282 (Bom). The ld. Counsel has also brought to our notice that the Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 142/Ahd/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of the assessee has decided the similar issue on identical facts in favour of the assessee. In view of the…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.242/Kol/2018 & C.O No.43/Kol/2018 (a/o ITA No.242/Kol/2018) Assessment Year :2013-14 DCIT, Circle-10(1), V/s. M/s Dream Bake Pvt. Ltd., P-7, Chowringhee 296, Kalukhan Road, Boral, Square, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700154 Kolkata-69 [PAN No. AABCD 1189 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/ "तया"ेपक Respondent/Co-objector Shri Aloke Kr. Ghosh, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT- राज व क" ओर से/By Revenue DR…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…(22)(e) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions appellant seeks to place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 318 ITR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) Ltd i) 318 ITR 376 (Del) CIT vs. Amabassador Travels (P) Ltd ii) 318 ITR 462 (Del) CIT vs. Raj Kumar iii) ITA No. 569/2009(Del) dated 3.2.2010 CIT vs. Sunil Sethi iv) ITA NO. 589/2011 (Del) dated 30.09.2011 CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain v) ITA No. 1296, 1297/2011 (Del) dated 2.2.2012 CIT vs. International Land Lastly the nomenclature by the assessee or the opinion of the auditor cannot 5.2 be a conclusive basis to disregard…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…(22)(e) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions appellant seeks to place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 318 ITR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing (P) Ltd i) 318 ITR 376 (Del) CIT vs. Amabassador Travels (P) Ltd ii) 318 ITR 462 (Del) CIT vs. Raj Kumar iii) ITA No. 569/2009(Del) dated 3.2.2010 CIT vs. Sunil Sethi iv) ITA NO. 589/2011 (Del) dated 30.09.2011 CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain v) ITA No. 1296, 1297/2011 (Del) dated 2.2.2012 CIT vs. International Land Lastly the nomenclature by the assessee or the opinion of the auditor cannot 5.2 be a conclusive basis to disregard…