What is CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of the beneficial shareholder who receives the benefit of the loan or advance, and not in the hands of the company receiving the loan.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.?

111 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (324 ITR 263), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 2(22)(e), Section 234A, Section 234B.

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (324 ITR 263)

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3533/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner Of Promotions & Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, 349 Business Point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan : Aaecm1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner of Promotions and Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, 349 Business point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. PAN : AAECM1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date of Pronounc…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ms. Samiksha SaveFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 28Section 43C

…nate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09. It was submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Varun Shipping Co Ltd, reported in [2011] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), allowed the plea of the assessee and held that income by way of interest arising from the deposits is in the nature of business income and relates to the core shipping activity of the assessee. ITAs No.1751 & 1971/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2018-19) 5 8. On the other hand, the learned Department Representative (“learned DR”) placed reliance upon t…

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1751/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ms. Samiksha SaveFor Respondent: \nShri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 28Section 43C

…bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the\n assessment year 2008-09. It was submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the\nTribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT\nv/s Varun Shipping Co Ltd, reported in [2011] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), allowed\nthe plea of the assessee and held that income by way of interest arising from\nthe deposits is in the nature of business income and relates to the core\nshipping activity of the assessee.\n8. On the other hand, the learned Department Representative (“learned\nDR") placed reliance upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the\…

RAVI PICHAYA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 73/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

…nd no.2, we have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A) in his order in para 5.6.6 has specifically referred the judgement in the case of Universal Medicare Private Limited, 324 ITR 263 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court that deemed dividend can by assessed only in the hands of the beneficial shareholders only. It was further observed by Ld. CIT(A) that M/s. Zetex Engineers Private Ltd. has taken a loan of Rs.2,14,60,905/- from M/s. Hextech Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ravi Pichaya is a common shareholde…

RAVI PICHAYA , DIRECTOR IN HEXTECH ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2205/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

…nd no.2, we have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A) in his order in para 5.6.6 has specifically referred the judgement in the case of Universal Medicare Private Limited, 324 ITR 263 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court that deemed dividend can by assessed only in the hands of the beneficial shareholders only. It was further observed by Ld. CIT(A) that M/s. Zetex Engineers Private Ltd. has taken a loan of Rs.2,14,60,905/- from M/s. Hextech Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ravi Pichaya is a common shareholde…

DCITCC-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH CONSTRUCTIONS, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 841/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit-Cc-2(3) V. Avinash Constructions Room No. 803, 8Th Floor Abil House 2, Ganesh Khind Road Old Cgo Annexe Building Range, Hill Corner, Pune -411007 M. K. Road, Marine Lines Pune, Maharashtra Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…areholder of the lender company and not in the hands of the recipient entity in which the shareholder of the lender company is a partner. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., [324 ITR 263]. 7. After considering the facts and the submissions and after drawing the support from judicial decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that on the given facts provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply and deleted the impugned addition. 8. Before us, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer but coul…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MINAL CONSTRACTORS AND BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…such shareholder has substantial interest. 53. The said legal issue has been the subject matter of the decisions rendered by various High Courts and Tribunals. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT vs Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 that the deemed dividend us 2(22)\e) is required to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest which received the loan. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted as under: 8. Clause (e) of Section 2(22) is not artistically worded. For facility o…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…such shareholder has substantial interest. 53. The said legal issue has been the subject matter of the decisions rendered by various High Courts and Tribunals. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT vs Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 that the deemed dividend us 2(22)\e) is required to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest which received the loan. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted as under: 8. Clause (e) of Section 2(22) is not artistically worded. For facility o…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MAC QUALITY BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…such shareholder has substantial interest. 53. The said legal issue has been the subject matter of the decisions rendered by various High Courts and Tribunals. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT vs Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 that the deemed dividend us 2(22)\e) is required to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest which received the loan. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted as under: 8. Clause (e) of Section 2(22) is not artistically worded. For facility o…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKILANSTRUCTURALS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…such shareholder has substantial interest. 53. The said legal issue has been the subject matter of the decisions rendered by various High Courts and Tribunals. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT vs Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 that the deemed dividend us 2(22)\e) is required to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest which received the loan. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted as under: 8. Clause (e) of Section 2(22) is not artistically worded. For facility o…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKUNDA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…such shareholder has substantial interest. 53. The said legal issue has been the subject matter of the decisions rendered by various High Courts and Tribunals. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT vs Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 that the deemed dividend us 2(22)\e) is required to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest which received the loan. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted as under: 8. Clause (e) of Section 2(22) is not artistically worded. For facility o…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder. 26.1. The aforesaid view has since been approved in several decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development company in Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2013 judgement dated 5.10.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 IT…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder. 26.1. The aforesaid view has since been approved in several decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development company in Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2013 judgement dated 5.10.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 IT…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder. 26.1. The aforesaid view has since been approved in several decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development company in Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2013 judgement dated 5.10.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 IT…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder. 26.1. The aforesaid view has since been approved in several decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development company in Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2013 judgement dated 5.10.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. & others 340 IT…

SAJ INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., [NOW, SAJ FOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2191/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Saj Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Now Saj Food Products P Ltd)..........….…… Appellant 5/1, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. [Pan: Aafcs4575E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,54,27,000/- Made By The A.O. By Wrongly Treating The Interest Free Unsecured Loan/ Advance Received By The Assessee Company From M/S A.M. Marketing Ltd. As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. For That, Without Prejudice To Ground No. 1, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The A.O. Had Wrongly Taken The

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…rged by a legal fiction but in a situation of this nature, it would be the common shareholder who is to be taxed and not the recipient company. There are two other authorities, of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263/190 Taxman 144 and of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14/[2011] 199 Taxman 341/11 taxmann.com 100 laying down this proposition or principle of Law. 10. Mr. Khaitan submits that three situations are conceived in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act to expand the meaning of the term "Dividend" beyond what is norm…

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3574/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaaddl. Cit Vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd. Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, Room No. 352, Lodhi Road, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

…63 (SC), Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. ITO 109 ITR 43 (Ker), Maharana Mills Pvt. Limited v. ITO 36 ITR 350 (SC, CIT v. Delhi Cement Stockists 81 ITR 515 (Del.) and Nirmal Udyog v. CIT 232 ITR 493 (MP). Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Medicare (P) Ltd.: 324 ITR 263. 5.2 He submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Delhi in the case of Integrated Databases India Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No. 5055/Del/2016 has considered a similar issue and decided in favor of assessee. ITA-3574.Del.2017 5 MMTC Ltd. 6. Now giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record, the submission and the law cited, the bench is of consi…

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2948/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

…[2014- ITRV-HC- MUM-112] has held that the law laid down in Universal Medicare 324 ITR 263 (Bom) (approving Bhaumik Color 313 ITR 146 (SB)), that s 2(22)(e) does not apply to a non-shareholder, is a good law.  Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Universal Medicare 324 ITR 263 (Bom) has held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "I.T. Act) cannot be invoked as the assessee company was not a shareholder in the lending company. The argument in all these Appeals on behalf of the Revenue is that, though the assessee is a common shareholder with controlling stake in the lending compa…

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2550/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ms. Akshaya IyerFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

…lates to shipping, and thus the entire receipts are from the shipping activity, which qualifies for computation on a presumptive basis under the tonnage tax provisions. We find that the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Varun Shipping Co Ltd, [2011] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) held that where the assessee borrowed certain amount for its business purpose and earn interest on unutilised portion of the loan, interest income is taxable as business income. Thus, since the funds are nothing but the funds required for running the shipping business, which has been invested by the assessee, and interest income is earned,…

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2130/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ms. Akshaya IyerFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

…lates to shipping, and thus the entire receipts are from the shipping activity, which qualifies for computation on a presumptive basis under the tonnage tax provisions. We find that the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Varun Shipping Co Ltd, [2011] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) held that where the assessee borrowed certain amount for its business purpose and earn interest on unutilised portion of the loan, interest income is taxable as business income. Thus, since the funds are nothing but the funds required for running the shipping business, which has been invested by the assessee, and interest income is earned,…

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

What is CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX-3(4), MUMBAI

RAVI PICHAYA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

RAVI PICHAYA , DIRECTOR IN HEXTECH ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

DCITCC-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH CONSTRUCTIONS, PUNE

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MINAL CONSTRACTORS AND BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MAC QUALITY BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKILANSTRUCTURALS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKUNDA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

SAJ INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., [NOW, SAJ FOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LTD., NEW DELHI

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI