CIT v. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd.

27 SOT 270Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#6954 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)section 2(22)section 151(1)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 129section 244aaccumulated profitsincome escaping assessmentsection 127liable to taxsection 119

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd.

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

ITA 1808/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…eemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, moving further, the question arises as to in whose hands it should be taxed. In this connection, apart from the view expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd. (2009) 27 SOT 270 the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench E' (Special Bench) decided the following questions with regard to taxability of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as under: “i) Whether deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in hands of a person other than a shareholder - Held, yes. ii) Whether…

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 2985/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…eemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, moving further, the question arises as to in whose hands it should be taxed. In this connection, apart from the view expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd. (2009) 27 SOT 270 the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench E' (Special Bench) decided the following questions with regard to taxability of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as under: “i) Whether deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in hands of a person other than a shareholder - Held, yes. ii) Whether…

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)

…therein i.e. 54.2% and 28% of shares of relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Raj Kumar (2009) 181 Taxman 155; The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench 'E' (Special Bench) in the case of ACIT v. M/s Bhaumik Çolour (P) Ltd. (2009) 27 SOT 270 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. P. Sarathy Mudallar (1972) 83 ITR 170 and Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 1/3 Taxman (AP). 12. 2. We agree with the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the legal grounds raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing…

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 2983/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…eemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, moving further, the question arises as to in whose hands it should be taxed. In this connection, apart from the view expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd. (2009) 27 SOT 270 the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench E' (Special Bench) decided the following questions with regard to taxability of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as under: “i) Whether deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in hands of a person other than a shareholder - Held, yes. ii) Whether…

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

ITA 2985/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…eemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, moving further, the question arises as to in whose hands it should be taxed. In this connection, apart from the view expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd. (2009) 27 SOT 270 the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench E' (Special Bench) decided the following questions with regard to taxability of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as under: “i) Whether deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in hands of a person other than a shareholder - Held, yes. ii) Whether…

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

ITA 2983/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…eemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, moving further, the question arises as to in whose hands it should be taxed. In this connection, apart from the view expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd. (2009) 27 SOT 270 the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench E' (Special Bench) decided the following questions with regard to taxability of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as under: “i) Whether deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in hands of a person other than a shareholder - Held, yes. ii) Whether…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…lder and the same has to be taxed in the hands of such shareholder who obtained the benefit and not in the hands of the assessee-company, following the ratio of the decision in the case of Asst. CIT v. BhaumikColour P. Limited(2009) 313 ITR (AT) 146 (Mumbai); 27 SOT 270 (SB)?" 10.1. While dealing with this question the Bombay High Court after considering the scheme of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act observed thus: "However, even on the second aspect which has weighed with the Tribunal, we are of the view that the construction which has been placed on the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is correct. Section 2(22)(e) d…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…lder and the same has to be taxed in the hands of such shareholder who obtained the benefit and not in the hands of the assessee-company, following the ratio of the decision in the case of Asst. CIT v. BhaumikColour P. Limited(2009) 313 ITR (AT) 146 (Mumbai); 27 SOT 270 (SB)?" 10.1. While dealing with this question the Bombay High Court after considering the scheme of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act observed thus: "However, even on the second aspect which has weighed with the Tribunal, we are of the view that the construction which has been placed on the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is correct. Section 2(22)(e) d…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RITESH PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3920/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…pect; whereas Ld. AR submits that the assessee was not a concern in which any of the shareholders of RSML had substantial interest, and while placing reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 27 SOT 270 (Mum) (SB) he argued that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is taxable in the hands of the common shareholder. He submitted that the said decision of the Special Bench has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare: 324 ITR 263 (Bom). He also placed reliance on the additions reported inCIT vs. A…

M/S. SPRY HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4865/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics3968A Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICS3968A Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020 ORDER Per Amit Shukla , Judicial Member:…

M/S. SPRY HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4864/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics3968A Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICS3968A Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020 ORDER Per Amit Shukla , Judicial Member:…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT vs. SAI JYOTI FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2365/AHD/2016[2008-0]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2018

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ सं अ

Section 2(22)(e)Section 56(2)(i)

…ls Ltd. v. ACIT [I.T.A.No. DCIT 2(1)(2) Surat v. Sai Jyoti Fashion Pvt. Ltd. /I.T.A. No.2365/Ahd/2016/A.Y.0809 Page 6 of 7 813/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 06-07 dtd. 06.07.2012] in which decision in the case of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 01 (SB)(Mum)/ 27 SOT 270 (Mumbai), CIT v. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14/ [2011] 199 Taxman 341/11 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi) , CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom) CIT v. Hotel Hilltop 313 ITR 116 (Raj) were referred and relied upon. Thus, we find no justifiable reason to interfere in the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT (A). The learned counsel for th…

ITO 9 (1) (1), MUMBAI vs. MANOJ UPADHYAY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed wherein

ITA 5172/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Income Tax Officer - 9(1)(1) Vs. Mr. Manoj Upadhyay Mumbai C/O. Accu Dat Transcription Services Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Linkage House, 6 Marol Co-Op Industrial Estate, Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…t the deeming provision of Sec,2(22)(e), the recipient of the money should be a registered shareholder as well as a beneficial shareholder of the lender company. Tin: Hon'ble Mumbai 1TAT Special bench in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt Ltd reported in 27 SOT 270 (Mum)(SB) had decided that "Whether expression 'shareholder' referred to in section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder and, thus, if a person is a registered shareholder but not beneficial shareholder then provisions of section 2(22)(e) would not apply and similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder b…

NAMITA V SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. CIT CITY II, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha
Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…sham Importers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,82,00,000/- Total Rs.1,92,00,000/- It was under these circumstances, drawing support from the decisions in CIT vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and Asst. CIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P). Ltd. [2009] 27 SOT 270 (Mum)(SB), held by the ld. CIT, in exercise of his revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act, that the amounts lent are liable to be deemed as dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal, raising the following grounds: ‘1. The learned CIT erred in invoking s. 263 of the Income Tax Act by stating that earl…

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. GEEBS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3338/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Mamdeo
Section 10BSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3338/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–8(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 v/s M/s. Gebbs Healthcare Solutions P. Ltd. 13th Street, Central Road, MIDC Marol ……………. Respondent Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AALCS4978H Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue by : Shri Shrikant Mamdeo Date of Hearing – 07.01.2016 Date of Order – 07.01.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Instant appeal…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANMATI ARCADE PVT L

RP/322/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 260Section 4

…me has to be taxed in the hands of such shareholder who obtained the benefit and not in the hands of the assessee-company, 11 following the ratio of the decision in the case of Asst. CIT v. Bhaumik Colour P. Limited(2009) 313 ITR (AT) 146 (Mumbai); 27 SOT 270 (SB)?” 10.1. While dealing with this question the Bombay High Court after considering the scheme of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act observed thus: “However, even on the second aspect which has weighed with the Tribunal, we are of the view that the construction which has been placed on the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is correct…

CIT v. Raj Kumar (supra) Colour (P) Ltd. (27 SOT 270) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax