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 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 147 Section 148 Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C Section 115VA

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

closely held company accumulated profits section 2(22)section 47 deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)beneficial owner liable to tax direct tax vivad se vishwas escapement of income section 56 vivad se vishwas

Judgments citing CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

Business India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 12 (1), Mumbai

Accordingly appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 3803/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3803 To 3806/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, DR

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

…ted that as per the reasons recorded by the AO, AO has applied the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and taxed in the hands of the assessee, whereas as held in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd 313 ITR (AT) 146(Mum)(SB) and Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd 324 ITR 263 (Bom), wherein it was held that deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act can be charged in the hands of the shareholders, not in the hands of the beneficiary. He further submitted that it clearly indicates that AO has not applied his mind considering the above said judicial precedents that the deemed dividend can be charged only in the hands of th…

Shri Mehul Pratap Asnani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 693/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 693/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Mehul Pratap Asnani Vs. Dcit 4, Garden Enclave, Circle-1, Opp. Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan:Acm Pa6 996 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. DR

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

…milar view has been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Daisy Packers Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Appeal No. 212 of 2010. Almost, a large number of Hon’ble High Courts are unanimous on this issue viz. CIT vs. Universal Medicare P. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 and CIT vs. MCC Marketing P. Ltd., 343 ITR 350. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCCIT-III vs. Sarva Equity P. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Daisy Packers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted SLP against the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court, but the decisi…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1514/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 80ISection 80i

…hareholder of M/s Ambuja Realty Development Ltd., which fact was not controverted by the Ld. DR before us.In support of this view, we rely on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Delhi in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263/190 Taxman 144 (Bom.) & CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com/199 Taxman 341 (Delhi) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sarva Equity (P.) Ltd. [2014] 44 taxmann.com 28 (Kar.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co. [2018] 401 ITR 152 (SC). In the facts of the present c…

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)

…is an inter-corporate deposit and heavily relied on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. (2009) 28 SOT 383 (Mum.-Trib.). Relying on the Jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Bhaumik Colour 5 Pvt. Ltd., 313 ITR 146 (Mum-Trib.)(SB), it was argued that the said amount cannot be added in the hands of the “beneficiary” shareholder i.e. the assessee in this case. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee…

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Simplex Renewable Resources P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 751/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Dcit-8(2)(1) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 M.K. Road 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.112/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of Ita No.751/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Simplex Renewable Resources Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-8(2)(1) बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills Compound Room No.624 30, Keshavrao Khadye Marg M.K. Road Vs. Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai-400 011. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-1660-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/C.O.) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Chaudhury Arun Kumar, Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil Lohia, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘Act’], Dividend Includes Any Payment Of Any Sum, By A Company

For Appellant: Shri Anil Lohia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhury Arun Kumar, Ld. DR

Section 2(22)(e)

…made available to shareholders of company giving loan or advance, and, therefore, intention of Legislature is to tax dividend only in hands of shareholder and not in hands of concern. 1.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [324 ITR 263 22/03/2010] declined to admit revenue’s appeal and confirmed the stand of Tribunal, which held that deemed dividend would be taxable in the hands of shareholders and not in the hand of the concern, to which such loans have been granted. This judgement has subsequently been followed by the Hon’ble Court in catena of its own judgement, one of which…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bhaawani Shankar Ginning Factory, Dhule

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue and C

ITA 245/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

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

…y the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited reported in (2010) 324 ITR 263 deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under : “4.4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant and the order of the Assessing Officer. The appellant is a firm. It is a settled law that the partnership firm is not a legal person. Hence the partnership firm holds share in the name of its partne…

Sardar Madan Singh Bharara, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals stand allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…dividend in the hands of OSCPL, which is not a shareholder in the M/s. Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. (GDPL). The Hon'ble IT AT following the decision of M/s. Bhaumik Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd., 118 ITD 1 Mumbai Special Bench and CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) has deleted the additions. The Ld.CIT(A)-17 while deciding the case of M/s. Om Siddi Vinayak Creation Pvt. Ltd. deleted the said addition. The Ld.AO of the assessee stated that Shri Madan Singh Bharara (assessee) is a registered and beneficial shareholder of M/s. Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. which is a lender company in this case and having…

ACIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Associated Hospitality Ltd Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1348/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…red material available on record. The issue of taxability on loans and advances as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the beneficial owners has been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 and held that when the recipient of loan was not a shareholders in any of the entities which have advanced loans and advances, then the additions made in the hands of the recipient company of loan u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is not in accordance with provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ITAT, Mumbai C Bench in case of Perfect Engineering P…

DCIT-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Frischmann Prabhu (I) Privets Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5554/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5554/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) In The Matter Of:

For Respondent: Shri Malav P. Sheth, AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40A(2)(a)

…Ltd. Hence the deeming fiction, created u/s. 2(22)(e) cannot be extended to tax the dividend in the hands of a person who is not a shareholder. In this respect, we also placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vrs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd (2010) 324 ITR 263 (Bom), CIT vrs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 48 taxmann.com 294 (Bom) and ACIT vrs. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 256(Bom). 12. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us…

DCIT 11(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ritika Hotas Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6131/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

…der of shares and who has a substantial interest in the company having minimum 10% of voting power thereon. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd., reported in 324 ITR 263 (Bom). 10. The ld. CIT(A) on perusal of the list of shareholders of Muchhala Magic Land Pvt. Ltd., observed that assessee company is not holding any shares in the said company. Hence, he held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-or…

Microfinish Valves Private Limited, Hubli vs. Asst.C.I.T., Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1449/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43B

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 14. 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 (Born), 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 (Kam.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development Co. 401 ITR 152(SC). Since the Assessee in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Chaudhary Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 957/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.957/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment year : 2012-13 The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Nashik. ………. अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम v/s Chaudhary Cars Pvt. Limited, ………. ""यथ" / 11, ‘Swed Bindu’, Shanti Nagar, Respondent Yawal Road, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. PAN : AADCC7960R. Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak. Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04.02.2019 Date o…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dream Bake Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 242/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40S(2)(b)

…Court which supports the above view and makes the issue no longer a res integra. The citations of those decisions are given as below for ready reference: -CIT -vs.- Ankitech P. Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) -CIT -vs.- Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) -ACIT -vs.- Hotel Hilltop (2009) 313 ITR 116 (Raj) -CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (ITA No. 1970(2013 dated 20-01-2015) -CIT v/so Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367ITR 346 (Bom) -ACIT -vs.- Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 146 (Mum SB) -Dhall Properties Pvt. Ltd. -vs.-ITO (ITA No. 70/Kol/2012) -DCIT -vs.- Meenakshi Tea Co. Ltd.(1TA No. 95…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gpsar Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue on this issue for A

ITA 2905/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 73

…lder provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not apply as held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. 120 TTJ 865 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has laid down the ratio that deemed dividend have to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the assessee company. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hotel Hilltop 313 ITR 116 and also by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of…

Gpsar Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue on this issue for A

ITA 2894/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 73

Microfinish Valves Pvt Ltd, Hubli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1706/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(22)(e)

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 14. 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), 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 Assessee in…

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)

…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 the assessee relied on the decision of Hon`ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Encore Cargo Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd.[T.C. (A) Nos. 105 and…

A.C.I.T.-4(1), Agra vs. M/S Roger Industries Ltd., Agra

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member A.Y.: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 4(1), vs. M/s Roger Industries Ltd., Agra. 8B/7A, Dev Nagar, Bye Pass Road, Agra PAN AADCR 7954 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Deependra Mohan, Advocate Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 11.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2018 ORDER Per Dr.Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This is the Department’s appeal filed against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Agra, in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09, raising following gr…

Sandhya Dyes & Chemicals, Umbergam vs. The Addl.CIT, Vapi Range, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3225/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3225/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sandhya Dyes & Vs. The Additional Commissioner Chemicals, Of Income Tax, Plot No. 1703-B, Sarigam, Vapi Range, Vapi. Gidc, Umbergaon, Gujarat. [Pan: Aalfs 5832 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 41(1)

…Sandhya Dyes & Chemicals Vs. Addl. CIT, Vapi Range, Vapi/I.T.A. No.3225/Ahd/2015/A.Y.:2011-12 Page 1 of 18 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3225/Ahd/2015/SRT िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Sandhya Dyes & Vs. The Additional Commissioner Chemicals, of Income Tax, Plot No. 1703-B, Sarigam, Vapi Range, Vapi. GIDC, Umbergaon, Gujarat. [PAN: AALFS 5832 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा…

Anshul Speciality Molecules . P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2016/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Anshul Speciality Molecules Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central (Formerly Anshul Specialty Circle-6(3), Mumbai Molecules Ltd,.) 13, Aradhana Industrial Development Corporation, Near Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 063 Pan/Gir No.Aabca4003H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ribunal by order in ITA.No,405/MUM/2014 & ITA.No. 6787/MUM/2013 dated 3 M/s. Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt. Ltd., 24.11.2017 deleted the penalty taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd., [324 ITR 263], since a view can be taken that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) can only apply to shareholder and the deemed dividend can be taxed only in the hands of the shareholder. It is further submitted that the Tribunal also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery [ITA.No. 1154, 953. 1097 &…