CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

324 ITR 263High Court2010#967 most cited

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.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. · 324 ITR 263 · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · beneficial shareholder · loan or advance to shareholder · closely held company · beneficial owner · Bombay High Court · accumulated profits

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 115VA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

closely held companyaccumulated profitssection 2(22)section 47deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)beneficial ownerliable to taxdirect tax vivad se vishwasescapement of incomesection 56vivad se vishwas

Judgments citing CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Badani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 982/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sanjay Badani Acit – 10(3) Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, Now Known As 15(2)(1), D. S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 014

For Appellant: Shri Margav ShuklaFor Respondent: 25.08.2022
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23(1)Section 250

…fore the ld. CIT(A), who deleted the said addition on the ground that the deemed dividend was to be taxed in the hands of the share holders by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [190 Taxmann 144 (Bom)] and the co-ordinate bench in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)]. 6. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us on this ground. 7. The ld. Authorized Representative (‘ld. AR’ for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee proposed to file additional evidence in support of his claim pert…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is stand dismissed

ITA 1385/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-15(2)(2) Vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Limited, 20/21, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Navnandavan Indl Estate, Road, Marine Lines, L.B.S Marg, Mulund Mumbai – 400 020 (West), Mumbai – 400 080 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcp1825G Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Malav ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…was unjustified in taxing loan received by appellant as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). 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 Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom), CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del), National Travel Services (2012) 249 CTR (del) 540 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sarva Equity (P) Ltd, (2014) 111 DTR 207 (Karn) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS Madhur Housing and Development Co. 401 ITR 152(SC). Since the appellant in the…

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)

…dated 22nd September 1987 bearing Circular No.495. 8. On the other hand, Mr.A.Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee invited our attention to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited, [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. MCC Marketing Private Limited, [2012] 343 ITR 350 (Delhi) and in C.I.T. vs. Ankitech P. Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) to contend that since the respondent-assessee was and is not a shareholder of M/s.Ittina from which it has received monies, which are in the nature of loa…

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)

…dated 22nd September 1987 bearing Circular No.495. 8. On the other hand, Mr.A.Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee invited our attention to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited, [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. MCC Marketing Private Limited, [2012] 343 ITR 350 (Delhi) and in C.I.T. vs. Ankitech P. Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) to contend that since the respondent-assessee was and is not a shareholder of M/s.Ittina from which it has received monies, which are in the nature of loa…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2259/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2259/Ahd/2016 With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 D.C.I.T., M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Iscon House, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Nr. Citi Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…de in the • hands of the company. The view taken by the I. T.A. T. Mumbai Special Bench in the case of ACIT Mumbai vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd has been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High \ Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 ' (Bom.) The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s Daisy Packers (P) Ltd decided the issue in favour of the assessee, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) wherein it was held that if the assessee-company does not hold a share in other company from which it had rec…

M/S Zygo Bonsai Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 591/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra R. Chakraborty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA No.591/Bang/2019 M/s. Zygo Bonsai Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER “SMC” Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Zygo Bonsai Pvt. Ltd. Sy.No.21, Kollur Village Antharahalli Doddaballapur Vs. ITO Ward-7(1)(4) Bengaluru Bengaluru PAN NO : AAACZ0447R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Raghavendra R. Chakraborty, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Hearing : 19.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2021 O R D E R The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.2.…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no dividend can be taxed in the hands of the appellant being not a share holder in any of the three lender companies. In the written submission various jud…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no dividend can be taxed in the hands of the appellant being not a share holder in any of the three lender companies. In the written submission various jud…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no dividend can be taxed in the hands of the appellant being not a share holder in any of the three lender companies. In the written submission various jud…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no dividend can be taxed in the hands of the appellant being not a share holder in any of the three lender companies. In the written submission various jud…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lamda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no dividend can be taxed in the hands of the appellant being not a share holder in any of the three lender companies. In the written submission various jud…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras of this order. 5.5. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. BhaumikColour (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (AT) of which decision was also subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In both the judgments, it was observed that the intention of the various legislature is to tax dividend only in the hands of the share holder and not in the hands of the concern and therefore no dividend can be taxed in the hands of the appellant being not a share holder in any of the three lender companies. In the written submission various jud…

M/S Perfecta Lifestyle, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 550/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, I.T.PFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Perfecta Lifestyle, The Income-Tax Officer, No.16, (Old No.12) 3rd Floor, Ward -5(2)(3), Kariyappa Road, Bengaluru. Basavanagudi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 004. PAN – AANFP 6507 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H Guruswamy, I.T.P Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 10/05/…

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

………………………………………….. In the case of DCIT vs. Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 96 taxmann.com 262 (Mumbai – Trib.), ....................................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. In the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. (2010) 190 Taxmann 144 (Bombay–HC), ....................................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. In the case of CIT vs. N.S.N. Jewellers (P.) Ltd. (2015) 57 taxmann.com 113 (Bombay –HC), ....................................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. 3.2.8 Now, moving still further, i note that this issue stands virtually pre-empted a j…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

………………………………………….. In the case of DCIT vs. Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 96 taxmann.com 262 (Mumbai – Trib.), ....................................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. In the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. (2010) 190 Taxmann 144 (Bombay–HC), ....................................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. In the case of CIT vs. N.S.N. Jewellers (P.) Ltd. (2015) 57 taxmann.com 113 (Bombay –HC), ....................................... …………………………………………. ……………………………………….. 3.2.8 Now, moving still further, i note that this issue stands virtually pre-empted a j…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dhwani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by revenue and cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed

ITA 2232/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Smt. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…be made in the hands of the company. The view taken by the I.T.A.T. Mumbai Special Bench in the case of ACIT Mumbai vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd has been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s Daisy Packers (P) Ltd decided the issue in favour of the assesses, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) wherein it was held that if the assessee-company does not hold a share in other company from which it had recei…

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

…) 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. Ankitech (P) Ltd: 340 ITR 14 (Del), which was further upheld by the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company 401 ITR 152 (SC), and IT vs. MotherIndia Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 711. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’b…

Vivek Dattatray Samant, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 3015/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Yasham Bio Dcit 8(3), Sciences Pvt. Ltd.(Now Now Ito 11(3)(4), Known As Yasham Aayakar Bhavan, Speciality Ingredients Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.) , Vs. B/5, Pooja Unit Chs Ltd., Model Town, J.P. Road, 4 Bunglows, Andhra (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacy 2899N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Vivek Dattatray Dcit 8(3), Samant, Now Ito 11(3)(4), 405, Raheja Crest Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, 1 Off Link Orad, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aazps 4623G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against Two Different Orders Dated 23.01.2017 & 06.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…Assessee company. While doing so Ld. CIT(A) relied on Hon`ble S.C. decision in case of Gopal & Sons 145 DTR 0289 (SC) by ignoring the following decisions of Hon`ble Bombay High Court: 7 M/s. Yasham Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. CIT v/s Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom) CIT v/s ALFA Sai Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v/s Narmina Trade Investment Pvt. Ltd. 388 ITR 243 (Bom) CIT v.s Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 107 DTR 0145, 367 ITR 346: CIT v.s India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v/s Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 544 (Bom) The ld. AR submitted that firstly it ha…

Yasham Bio Science P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 2723/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Yasham Bio Dcit 8(3), Sciences Pvt. Ltd.(Now Now Ito 11(3)(4), Known As Yasham Aayakar Bhavan, Speciality Ingredients Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.) , Vs. B/5, Pooja Unit Chs Ltd., Model Town, J.P. Road, 4 Bunglows, Andhra (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacy 2899N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Vivek Dattatray Dcit 8(3), Samant, Now Ito 11(3)(4), 405, Raheja Crest Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, 1 Off Link Orad, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aazps 4623G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against Two Different Orders Dated 23.01.2017 & 06.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…Assessee company. While doing so Ld. CIT(A) relied on Hon`ble S.C. decision in case of Gopal & Sons 145 DTR 0289 (SC) by ignoring the following decisions of Hon`ble Bombay High Court: 7 M/s. Yasham Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. CIT v/s Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom) CIT v/s ALFA Sai Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v/s Narmina Trade Investment Pvt. Ltd. 388 ITR 243 (Bom) CIT v.s Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 107 DTR 0145, 367 ITR 346: CIT v.s India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v/s Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 544 (Bom) The ld. AR submitted that firstly it ha…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vrisa Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4217/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodc.O No. 174/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: S/shri V. Vinod Kumar, Udol Raj Singh, D.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kishore B. Phadke, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…the dividend within the meaning of cl. (e) of Sec. 2(22) can only be brought to tax in the hands of the shareholder. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 263. In the totality of the facts of the case, we are inclined to accept the view taken by the CIT(A) that as the assessee company is not a shareholder in either of the aforesaid lender companies viz. (i). M/s Vrisa Creations Pvt. Ltd.; and (ii). M/s Sesha-sai projects Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the amount received from them could not have been brought to…