CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada

367 ITR 78High Court2014#4512 most cited

What is CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada authority for?

Provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not attracted where the assessee had a running account with a company and was advancing money to it, as the provision was intended to prevent the misuse of funds by taking them out of the company as loan advances instead of dividends.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,402 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loan advance · running account · company funds · business expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 10(2A)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 2(22)(e)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)business expediencybeneficial ownercommercial expediencysection 68previous yeartransferprescribedcompany

Judgments citing CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada

Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 446/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…2(22)(e) of the Act, therefore, such addition u/s 2(22)(e) is not justified. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: 14 1. CIT v. Gayatri Chakraborty [(2018) 407 ITR 730 (Cal)] 2. CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada [367 ITR 78 (P&H)) 3. Gadgil Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 1455/PUNE/2017] 4. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [168 ITD 649 (Del)] 5. Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT [167 ITD 100 (Mum)] Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT [338 ITR 538 (Cal)/[ratio applicablel 6. 20. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CI…

Measage G. G Oils & Fats Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

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

…dition made in the case of the assessee deserves to be deleted. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the catena ofjudgment. The ld AR respectfully relied of order of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Dev Dada 46 taxmann.com 402/ 367 ITR 78 (P &H). Wherein it has been held that. “10. From the above, it emerges that CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently recorded that the assessee had running account with the I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 8 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 company - M/s Dada Motors Pvt. Limited and had been advancing money to it. It was further observed t…

Mesers G.G Contineental Trades Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

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

…dition made in the case of the assessee deserves to be deleted. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the catena ofjudgment. The ld AR respectfully relied of order of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Dev Dada 46 taxmann.com 402/ 367 ITR 78 (P &H). Wherein it has been held that. “10. From the above, it emerges that CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently recorded that the assessee had running account with the I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 8 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 company - M/s Dada Motors Pvt. Limited and had been advancing money to it. It was further observed t…

Hari Kumar Ruliram Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1941/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hari Kumar Ruliram Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1)(5), 110 Sterling Chambers, Poona Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Masjit Bunder (East), Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400-009. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaups 1542 F Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. M. Subramanian, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. M. Subramanian, AR
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 9

…e of such transaction. In support of his n support of his contention, the Ld. Counsel relied on following decisions : contention, the Ld. Counsel relied on following decisions contention, the Ld. Counsel relied on following decisions i. CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H) CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H) ii. CIT v. Gayatri Chakraborty 407 ITR 730 (Cal) CIT v. Gayatri Chakraborty 407 ITR 730 (Cal) iii. Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT 167 ITD 100 Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT 167 ITD 100 6.2 Further, the Ld. Counsel also submitted that the company Further, the Ld. Counsel also submitted that the company Furthe…

Wep Peripherals Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…actions in current accounts are also outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act as held in the following cases: Wep Peripherals Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 18 • 28 ST 383 (Mum Trib) Bombay Oil Industreis Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax • 367 ITR 78 (P&H) CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada • 167 ITD 100 (Mum Trib) Ravindra R. Fotedar Vs. ACIT • IT Appeal Nos.958 & 959 of 2015 dated 21.12.2015 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Schutz Dishman Biotech (P) Ltd. (Guj)” 10.6 Further, in the case of Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), wherein it was held as under: “In the case…

Bhotika Trade & Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2034/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2034/Kol./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bhotika Trade & Services Pvt. Ltd., V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Epms, Vasant Square Mall, Plot-A, S Tax, Circle-9(1), Sector-B, Pocket-V, Community Kolkata-700069 Centre, Sf-11, 2Nd Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb5790K Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…ai High Court in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 146 and keeping in view the fact that the transactions are in the nature of regular business transactions which are not liable to be taxed u/s 2(22)(e) as held in the case of CIT Vs Suraj Devi Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H), we hereby hold that no addition in the hands of the assessee is called for u/s 2(22)(e). ITA No. 2034/Kol./2017 4 Bhotika Trade & Services Pvt. Ltd. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/08/2020. (Amit Shukla) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 26/08/…

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)

…., ITO, Ward-9(2)(1), Mumbai in ITA.No.83/Mum./2013, Dated 14.11.2014. 3. Judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs., Gayatri Chakravarthy 407 ITR 730 (Cal.). 4. Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Surajdev Dada vs., CIT 367 ITR 78 (P&H). 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee submitted before A.O. that it has taken money from its subsidiary company M/s. Exotica Housing and Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., which were repaid within a short span of time. The transactions between th…

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)

…ut looking into this aspect of the matter, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal which is liable to be set aside. The ld. A/R relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. M/s. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. Suraj Devi Dada (2014) 367 ITR 78 (Pun. & Har. HC) ITO vs. Smt. Gayatri Chakraborty (2016) 45 ITR (Trib) 197 (ITAT – Kolkata) CIT vs. Raj Kumar 2009 (181 Taxman 155) 4 Shri Vijay Agarwal, Jaipur. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (173 Taxman 407) CIT vs. Nagain Das M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom.) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that in the account of th…

Sri Bhaskar Raju, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1828/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1828 & 1829/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2011-12 Sri S.K Bhaskar Raju, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, #97, 8th Cross, RMV Extension, Range-9, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru. [ITA No.1829/Bang/2016] Bengaluru-560 080. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-9(1), PAN – ABLPB 3852 H Bengaluru. [ITA No.1828/Bang/2016] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hear…

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)

…case of a “beneficiary” shareholder was also rejected by the Assessing Officer. However, CIT(A), 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 o…

M/S G G Oils & Fats Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…, for s. 2(22)(e) to apply, but only as an open, mutual and current account. The credit obtained only for a period of 82 days during the relevant year. It was under these circumstances that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada [2014] 367 ITR 78 (P&H), where the credit was for 55 days only, held that the provision of s. 2(22)(e), which was to stop the misuse by taking funds out of the company by way of a loan or advance instead of dividend and, thereby, avoid tax, could be invoked. Similar view, it was submitted, was expressed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Gayatri Chakrabor…

Premier Estate & Equipments .Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 633/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13

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

…inafter the Act), without considering the written submission along with the documents filed by the assessee vide letters dated 18-09-2015, 12-10-2015 & 04-11-2015. 2. (33 taxman.com 614 (Gujarat), Arvind Kumar Jain (18 taxman.com 132(Delhi), Suraj Dev Dada (367 ITR 78) (P&H), Chariot International P Ltd (47 taxmann.com 374) (Bang-Trib.), NH Securities Ltd (11 SOT 32) (mum- Trib.) & Ishwar Chand Jindal (61 taxman.com 428) (Del- Trib.). M/s Premier Estate & Equipments Pvt. Ltd. 2.1 On the other hand, Shri Rajat Mittal, the learned DR strongly defended the impugned order by inviting our invitation to the fa…

Ravindra R. Fotedar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6778/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2010 – 2011 Ravindra R Fotedar Acit 10(2) 7 Bharat Tirth Society, Mumbai Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan Aacpf1616R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)

…if there are transactions in the form of current accommodation entries, they cannot be regarding to be loans and advances. 11. We have also noted that similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Dev Dada [367 ITR 78], wherein, it has been held as under: “10. From the above, it emerges that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had concurrently recorded that the assessee had running account with the company—M/s. Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. and had been advancing money to it. It was further observed that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of th…

Asst CIT CC 38, Mumbai vs. Reynold Shirting P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 5390/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, 3Rd Phase, Opp. Mittal Estate, R.No.32(1), Ground Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Ravikiran, D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner of Income 1st Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AACCR 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate,…

Reynold Shirting P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 4333/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, 3Rd Phase, Opp. Mittal Estate, R.No.32(1), Ground Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Ravikiran, D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner of Income 1st Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AACCR 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate,…

Smt.Vidya Devi Ladhani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 118/BANG/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…s relied upon the following decisions : i. CIT Vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. 136 DTR 65(Kar) ii. CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions 237 Taxmann 728 iii. Order dt.31.8.2016 in ITA No.1215/Mum/ in the case of Anil Mahavir Gupta Vs. ACIT. iv. CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H) v. Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal) vi. CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) Placing reliance on the above judgments, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment under Section 153A can be made on the basis of seized material and further the addition should be strictly based on the evidence foun…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. Mrs. Shahanaz Mohiuddin, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

Mrs. Shahanaz Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada (367 ITR 78) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax