How many judgments cite CIT v. Raj Kumar?

119 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Raj Kumar (318 ITR 462), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Raj Kumar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(22)(e), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 153A.

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 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 153A Section 68 Section 115-O

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115q section 44af section 131(1)(d)accumulated profits section 142(2)deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)section 2(22)section 55a section 38 section 142a section 131(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj Kumar

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ercial transaction, the A.O. was not justified in holding that the amount received were deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 8. The appellant submits that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar reported in 318 ITR 462, has taken a view on the interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act that, every advance is not a loan when received by a shareholder and cannot be treated to be deemed dividend. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble High Court at page 483 has held as under: “This court in Raj Kumar’s case extensively referred to the report of the Taxa…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 M/s The Hooghly Mills V/s. DCIT, Central Circle-VII, Co. Ltd. C/o, Salarpuria 18, Rabindra Sarani, Jajodia & Co. 7, C.R. Kolkata-700 001 Avenue, Kolkata-700 072 [PAN No.AAACT 9780 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-05-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pro…

Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale, Thane vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5410/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5410/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" Shri Chandrasekhar Maruti Vs. Acit-10(2), Mumbai- Musale Flat No.1203/1204, 400020 12Th Floor, Carlyle Raheja Garden, Lbs Marg, Off. Tip Top Thane, Mumbai-400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm 3914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Chetan A. Karia राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. S.Pandian सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 21-5-2012. 2. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated The Addition Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) At The Hands Of The Assessee On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property & Other Sources. The Assessee Was Having Major Shareholding In 3 Companies Namely; (I) M/S.Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. (Ii) M/ S. Advance Scientific Equipment P.Ltd. & (Iii) M/S. Star Earth Minerals P.Ltd. During Assessment Proceedings, From The Replies Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Noticed That M/S. Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. Had Advanced An Amount Of Rs.31,00,000/- On 16.12.2008 To M/S. Advance Scientific Equipment P. Ltd. & M/S.

Section 2(22)(e)

…ions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field." The Hon’ble High Court further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court “CIT v. Raj Kumar” [2009] 318 ITR 462(Delhi) and Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of “Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. ITO” (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal), and has observed that the combined meaning of the various clause of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is to mean that the payments included as deemed dividend would mean the gratuitous payments to a shareholder meant to avoid…

Sushil Grover, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Sushil Grover, 101, Patel Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Nagar Commercial Complex, Tax, Range-33, New Delhi Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaapg3108K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)(e)

…nst supply of goods, namely, waxes. In support of the proposition that trade advances do not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the assessee relied on the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Rajkumar reported in (2009) 318 ITR 462 (Del). The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on the basis of the bill books of the proprietary concern of the assessee, the Ledger account of the company and no VAT 3 AY: 2008-09 registration of the assessee, held that the transaction between the assessee and company was not of a trade advance and, therefore, the learned Commissioner…

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)

…T(A) has analysed this issue elaborately and came to a conclusion that provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not attracted in the case of normal business transactions. The same principle was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 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 substantially interested ; (ii…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर 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-40002…

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

…(A) has analysed this issue elaborately and came to a conclusion that provisions of section 2(22) (e) are not attracted in the case of normal business transactions. The same principle was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 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 substantially interested; (ii)…

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

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)

…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) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd V/s CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363(SC) 5. Per contra the ld DR relied heavily on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were clearly applicable and…

M/S. U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2979/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiu. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Range-18, Vs. 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Zamrudpur, Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit, U.K.Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., Range-18, 19, Dda Commercial Complex, Vs. Room No.211A, Zamrudpur, C.R.Building Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Anil Bhalla, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…ppeals) wherein he upheld the action of AO. Therefore assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Heard the rival contentions. The ld AR relied on the contention raised before learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and has also paced reliance on the decision of 318 ITR 462, 318 ITR 476, 313 ITR 538 of jurisdictional High Court wherein it is held that business advance cannot be taxed as deemed dividend. Against the ld AR relied on the orders of lower authorities. We have carefully considered the rival contention. Before us the assessee has submitted that the transactions with this parties are running account as loan…

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)

…on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits.” The provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) was interpreted by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajkumar (318 ITR 462) and it was held that the trade advance given in connection with a commercial transaction would 7 not fall in the ambit of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The following observations made by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court are relevant here:- “Keeping the aforesaid rule in mine we are of the opinion that the word “advance” which appears in the company of…

Vivek I Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3598/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3598/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ Shri Vivek I Gupta, The Ito-12(2)(2), D/21, Dhanraj Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Csm Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepg 1004E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :09.12.2015

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar

Section 2(22)(e)

…io that the financial transactions in any circumstances could not be treated as 5 ITA. No.3598/M/2013 loans or advances and therefore Sec. 2(22)(e) is not applicable. A similar view has taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 wherein it was held that the trade advances given to the assessee by the company could not be treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Once again, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 has reiterated what has been held in the case of Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Raj…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata. vs. M/S Machino Techno (Sales) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

ITA 172/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Respondent: Shri P. K. Chakraborty, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.172/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/s. Machino Techno (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11, Kolkata. (PAN:AACCM2561R) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.24/Kol/2013 In I.T.A No.172/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Machino Techno (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-11, Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 28.10.2015 Date of pronouncement: 05.11.2015 For the Revenue : Shri P. K. Chakraborty, JCIT, Sr. DR…

Mohammed Ahmed, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1659/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/S. Acit, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan No.Acxpa 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…erefore, holding this business transactions as advance and consequently deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not appropriate. Assessee has also cited case law in support of its claim as under:- a) CIT v. John 181 ITR 1 (Kar) b) CIT v. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Del) c) Tarulata vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) It was also submitted that job work done by assessee for the aforesaid company was subject to TDS u/s 194C of the Act and same was duly deducted and deposited in Govt. account. However, Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the claim of assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has cited several case law for not allowing the claim of asses…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, New Delhi

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

ITA 2917/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), N-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aagpg8032N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Iv, New Delhi, Dated 27.02.2013, Passed For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. Whether The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 53,29,843/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Ignoring The Fact That The Advances Had Not Been Made In The Ordinary Course Of Business Expediency & The Assessee Had Been Regularly Repaying The Amount Received From The Company. Ii. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary From The Company, Namely, M/S A.K.G. Industries

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv

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

…rovisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act shall not be applicable in respect of the debit balance arising in the account of the employee. My above view also gets support from the judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar, 318 ITR 462 (Del) and CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476 (Del.) whereby the Delhi High Court has held that the amount received by the assessee as an advance against future supply was a trade advance and not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, I hold that the amount received by the appellant is…

DCIT, Madurai vs. Global Polybags Idnustries (P) Limited, Virudhunagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1596/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1596/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.V. Rajasekaran, C.A

Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1596/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-2010 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Global Polybags Industries (P) Income Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle I, 500A Perali Road, Madurai Virudhunagar 626 001. [PAN AABCG 2203K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT. ""…

National Academy of Construction vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) -I

ITTA/474/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax XI vs. Arvind Kumar Jain

ITA/589/2011HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 2

…t that the amount in question represented the credit balance as a result of transactions between A & A Periodicals and the assessee on account of business relations and payment was not in the nature of „loan or advance‟. 5. In CIT Vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462, this Court has held that if the payments are made by such a company to even its shareholder having substantial interest but are the result of business transactions between the parties, then such payments cannot be treated as loan or advance and the money so received cannot be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2 (22)(e)…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arvind Kumar Jain

ITA-589/2011HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Section 2