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.

Asst CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Internatonal P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5971/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…his transaction come within the ambit of Explanation provided to Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this regard relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 263. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 146. 11. The learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that the learned CIT(A) was erred in deleting the addition made by the AO without appreciating the fact that provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, w…

ITO 7(2)(4, Mumbai vs. Sunjewles International Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5549/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Anshul Spaecialty Molecules P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4437/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

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

…ered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154, 953, 1097 & 1226 of 2014). On merit, reliance is placed by him on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom). Also it is stated by him that neither the assessee has concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in respect of the taxability of deemed dividend. 7. On the other the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The rea…

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Gilbarco Veedar Root India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1003/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Samuel DarseFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved

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

…hareholder in Portescap from whom such sum was received. In coming to such a decision, the CIT(A) has relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, including the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of (i) CIT vs Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), (ii) CIT vs Impact Containers, 367 ITR 346 (Bom.) and (iii) CIT vs NSN Jewellers (P) Ltd., Income Tax Appeal no. 2312 of 2011 (Bombay HC). Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 6 M/s. Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd. 7. Before us, the ld. DR has assailed the order of CIT(A) by pointing out that in vi…

ITO, Chandigarh vs. M/S J.N. Goyal Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhanshu BansalFor Respondent: Shri. Saurav Dubey

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

…of this court in Ankitech Pvt. Ltd(supra) fully applies to the present case. We accordingly hold, following the said judgment that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. 7. In the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that deemed dividend is assessable in the hands of the share holders. Admittedly, in this case the assesse company is not a share holder of M/s Competent Personnel and Allied Services (P) Ltd and the amount in question cannot be added in the hands of the assesse company. 8. Keeping in view the decisi…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 118/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T.Circle-12(2) -Vs.- M/S Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaocs 4689 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…on-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 7.6. 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 8 9 M/s Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2012-13 the…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Margadarsi Marketing Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 763/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal ChoudaryFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

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

…me at the hands of those shareholders.” 8. The same view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court again in case of CIT Vs. Navyug Promoters P. Ltd. (203 Taxman 618) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd., (324 ITR 263). 9. The ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of MARC Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 555/Hyd/2008 dt. 31/08/2009 while considering identical issue of advancement of loan to one company, which is not a shareholder of the lender company following the decision of ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in case of Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. (supra) and other de…

M/S Integrated Databases India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5055/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

…the face of record in this respect. He further submitted that it is a debatable issue which cannot be subjected to rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He placed on record order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Universal Medicare (P) Ltd., 324 ITR 263, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has accepted substantial question of law on the issue of leave encashment as under: “3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT in law is right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the amount of provision for leave encashment without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S J. K. M. Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1462/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.1461 & 1462 /Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward – 12 (1) Vs.- M/S J.K.M.Investment (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcj 2724 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R

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

…on-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 7.6. 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 judgment dated 5.10.2017, confirmed the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt.Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del.). Since the Assessee in th…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S J. K. M. Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1461/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R

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

…on-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 7.6. 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 judgment dated 5.10.2017, confirmed the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt.Ltd. & others 340 ITR 14 (Del.). Since the Assessee in th…

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Royal Automobiles P Ltd, Gwalior

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

ITA 122/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ao.

Section 2(22)(e)

…ot satisfied with the reply of the assessee and the cases of ‘CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd and ITA 121 & 122/Agra/2017 4 others’, reported in 340 ITR 14;‘CIT vs.Hotel Hilltop’, reported in 313 ITR 116 (Raj) and ‘CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.’ reported in 324 ITR 263 (Mum). Since the Assessing Officer was being not satisfied with the contention of the assessee and relied on the judgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ‘NCK Sons Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO’, Delhi in 102 ITD 311 and held that it is the case of common shareholding between lending and receiving company, the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(…

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Royal Automobiles P Ltd, Gwalior

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

ITA 121/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ao.

Section 2(22)(e)

Anshul Specialty Molecules Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -38, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 405/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Anshul Specialty Molecules Dcit-3(2), Ltd. 13, Aradhana Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Development Corporation, Mumbai-400020. Near Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabca4003H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Anshul Specialty Molecules Acit-38, Aayakar Ltd.13, Aradhana Industrial Bhavan Vs. Development Corporation, Mumbai-400020. Near Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabca4003H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

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

…y the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154, 953, 1097 & 1226 of 2014). On merit, reliance is placed by him on the Anshul Specialty Molecules Ltd. decision in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom). Also it is stated by him that neither the assessee has concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in respect of the taxability of deemed dividend. 7. On the other the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The rea…

D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. M/S Prem Motors Pvt Ltd., Gwalior

The appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 327/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 40A(2)(b)

…CIT Vs Daisy Packers (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 331 (Guj. HC) CIT VsSuram Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 327 (Raj. HC) ACIT Vs Britto Amusement P. Ltd (2014) 360 ITR 544 (Bom. HC) CIT Vs Hotel Hilltop – 313 ITR 116 (Raj) CIT Vs Universal Medicare P. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Mum) 5.3.3 I am also of the view that the dividend even under section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of the shareholder. As the appellant is neither a beneficial nor a registered shareholder of Vinayaka Farms & Resorts (I) Pvt Ltd and thus any advance received by the appellant from such a concern does not qualify the test of deemed divi…

Sh. Harish Kanwar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed for statistical

ITA 529/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 529/DEL/2017 A.Y. : 2011-12 SH. HARISH KANWAR, ITO, WARD 3(4), M-259, GREATER KAILASH-II, VS. NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 048 (PAN: AABPK1035G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Department by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 12.10.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & A Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.C.Dandey, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 198

…/ 242 CTR 129 / (2011) Tax LR 629 / (2012) 340 ITR 14 has hold that Where assessee is not a shareholder of the paying company, the dividend is not 7 assessable' in its hands. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd.(2010) 324 ITR 263 held that profit in the form of dividend can be distributed to only shareholders of that company and such dividend cannot be given to non- members. Admittedly appellant company is not a shareholder of RDFPL who have given loan to the appellant company. Such loan is also not given by M/s RDFPL to Shri Ashish Anand or Amarpreet Anand. It is not ou…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…made under section 2(22)(e) following the order of the Special Bench cited above. It is also to be noted that the reasoning of the Special Bench has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited (2010) 324 ITR 263(BOM). Both the order of the Special Bench and the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court have been noticed and followed in the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Patel Aluminium Pvt Ltd(supra). Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we confirm the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the second ground.” 21.…

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)

…13 Shri Ravindra R Fotedar of the Act can be assessed only in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of any other person. 6. We noted, Mumbai High Court, in its decision in case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited (324 ITR 263), approved the position taken by the Special Bench decision in case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. (supra) holding that the definition does not alter the legal position that dividend has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder. It further observed that the effect of clause (e) of Section 2(22) is to broaden the ambit of the expression…

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Dismissed

ITA 1563/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

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

…Creation Pvt. Ltd. which is not a shareholder in the M/s. Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 & 2008-09 The Hon'ble ITAT 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 (Born.) 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.A0 of the appellant stated that Shri Madan Singh Bharara is a registered and beneficial shareholder of M/s. Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. which is a lender company in this case and having more tha…

ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Om Siddi Vinayak Creations P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 55/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi M/S. Om Siddivinayak Income Tax Officer-8(2)-4 Creations Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 213/A, 2Nd Floor 6Th Floor, Gazebo House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 52, Gulmohar Road Mumbai 400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049 Pan – Aaaco7488F Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-8(2)-4 M/S. Om Siddivinayak Room No. 213/A, 2Nd Floor Creations Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 6Th Floor, Gazebo House Mumbai 400020 Plot No. 52, Gulmohar Road Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049 Pan – Aaaco7488F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipual J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Premanand J

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

…lder but not a registered 6 ITA 8819/Mum/2011 & 55/Mum/2012 M/s. Om Siddivinayak Creations P. Ltd. shareholder then also the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply.” 8. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT, Vs Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd (2010) 324 ITR 263 (Bom) has held that “Even assuming that it was a dividend, it would have to be taxed not in the hands of the assessee but in the hands of the shareholder”. 9. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the learned D.R., we respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (supra) and the decision of t…