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.

Om Siddivinayak Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)-4, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 8819/MUM/2011[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…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers, Mumbai

ITA 4527/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…Siroya FM Construction Pvt Ltd, the impugned amount of loan cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee firm as deemed dividend. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd 324 ITR 263 (Bom). Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and found that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd (supra) as well as the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Bhaumik Colour Pvt Ltd 319 ITR 146 (AT)(MUM SB). 20. During the…

D.C.I.T. 24(3), Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers, Mumbai

ITA 7246/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…Siroya FM Construction Pvt Ltd, the impugned amount of loan cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee firm as deemed dividend. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd 324 ITR 263 (Bom). Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and found that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd (supra) as well as the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Bhaumik Colour Pvt Ltd 319 ITR 146 (AT)(MUM SB). 20. During the…

Mr.Mn Jahanath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 1652/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Ramaswamy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…For this proposition, the AO placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. reported in 118 ITD 1 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (324 ITR 363)(Bom). 19. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order, confirmed the addition. ITA Nos.1649 to 1652/Bang/2014 Page 20 20. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal reiterating the same submissions. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 2…

M/S Birendra Chandra Saha, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-39, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…I.T.A. No. 541/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 541 /KOL/ 2014 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 M/s. Birendra Chandra Saha,....................................................Appellant 65/1, M.D. Road, Nimtalla, Kolkata-700 006 [PAN: AACFB 7386 C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,................................Respondent Circle-39, Kolkata, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate,…

DCIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. S.R.M Agro Foods, Navi Mumbai

ITA 7397/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mitesh ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 22(22)(e)Section 254(1)

…he held that loans/advances to the specified shareholders or for the benefit of such shareholders or to the concerns in which such shareholders were substantially interested, were taxable as dividend. He referred to the case of Universal Medicare Private Ltd.(324 ITR 263) of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein the Hon’ble Court had approved the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal that the dividend can be taxed in the hands of shareholder only and not in the hands of the concern and that the shareholder had to be both registered shareholder as well as beneficial shareholder.He also referred to the 7397…

S.M. Arshad, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1384/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri S.M.Arshad, Flat No.604, Door No.14-2-175-40, Light House Condominium, Light House Hill Road, Mangalore-575001. … Appellant Pa No.Aczpa0799F Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Mangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…2(22)(e) of the Act. In fact, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Bagmane Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015)(277 CTR 338)(Kar) following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263 held that when a payment is made to any concern falling under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 2, tax is leviable as deemed dividend in the hands of shareholder only and not in the hands of concern. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: “30. It was also contended on behalf of the revenue that having regard to the plain words used i…

D.C.I.T., Cen. Circle-VIII, Kolkata vs. M/S East End Silks (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 38/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, AR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…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 9 M/s. East End Silks (P)Ltd.. A.Yr.2010-11 (Del.). Since the Assessee in the present case is not a shareholder in the lender company, we are of the view that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee’s case. 7.7. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of th…

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5811/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri F.V.IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

…ment u/s.143(3), provision for leave encashment. He further contended that it is a debatable issue which cannot be subject to rectification u/s.154. 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 w…

Asst.C.I.T., Hubli vs. M/S Bellad & Co, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1029/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant PA No: AABFB6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli. … Respondent AND Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.R.Nulvi, CA Revenue by : Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the asses…

M/S Bellad & Company, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1004/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant PA No: AABFB6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli. … Respondent AND Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.R.Nulvi, CA Revenue by : Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the asses…

Prestress Wire Industries, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 12(1), Mumbai

ITA 6467/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi, D.S. Kabra-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6467/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Prestress Wire…

Suresh Enterprises Private Limited, Hubli vs. ACIT, Hubli

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

ITA 1284/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Suresh Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Akshay Chabbi Corner, Akshay Centre, Gokul Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccs4691 N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubli. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 2(22)(e)

…he tax is levied on the concern and not on the shareholders. As far as this question is concerned, this Court following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Page 10 of 11 Commissioner of Income Tax vs Universal Medicare (P) Limited reported in 324 ITR 263 has categorically held that when any payment is made by a company to any concern, which falls under clause (e), the tax is leviable on the shareholder only and not on the concern. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid judgment and we do not see any justification to take another view of this matter. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribun…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha
Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…s during the No. year 1 Yasham Cemphar Pvt. Ltd. Rs.10,00,000/- 2 Yasham Importers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,82,00,000/- Total Rs.1,92,00,000/- It was under these circumstances, drawing support from the decisions in CIT vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom) and Asst. CIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P). Ltd. [2009] 27 SOT 270 (Mum)(SB), held by the ld. CIT, in exercise of his revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act, that the amounts lent are liable to be deemed as dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal, raising the following grounds: ‘1. The learned CIT…

ITO 14(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Satellite Cable Tv Cable Network P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2714/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannuthe Ito -14(3)(3), Mumbai. ... Appellant Vs. M/S. Satellite Cable Tv Network P. Ltd. 1/156, Gorodia Shopping Centre, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai -77 Pan:Aakcs 0785R .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Santosh MankoskarFor Respondent: Shri K. Kotresh
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…as it is not a share holder in M/s. Wire & Wireless Network Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom). Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before me, it was a common point between the parties that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10, wherein vide its order in ITA No.4007/Mum/2013 dated 22/5/2015, similar addition made by the Assessing Officer…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Seaview Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2365/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita M. Bishvash, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2365/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DCIT, Circle 8 (1), vs. M/s. Seaview Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Basement, 6 Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AAJCS4143C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate REVENUE BY : Smt. Paramita M. Bishvash, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2016 Date of Order : 31.05.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, DCIT, Circle 8 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter refe…

DCIT, Central Circle - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 601/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 40A(7)(b)

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 28. 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.). Since the Assessee in the present case is not a shareholder in the lender company, we are of the view that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee’s case. 29. In view of the aforesaid decision, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) holding that n…

I.T.O WD - 4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Abp Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

Accordingly, this portion of ground no.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 966/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chodhury, Advocate, ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “ C” BENCH, KOLKATA Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member I.T.A No. 966/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 I.T.O Ward 4(3), Kolkata Vs. M/s. ABP Entertainment Pvt. Ltd PAN: AAFCA 7616L (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: None appeared For the Respondent : Shri Soumitra Chodhury, Advocate, ld. AR Date of Hearing: 08-02-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 10 -02-2016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned CIT(A)-IV, Kolkata in Appeal No. 161/CIT(A)-IV/2011-12 dated 29-01-2013…

Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal, Mumbai vs. ITO(It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ssion "shareholder" in section 2(22)(e) of the Act refers to both registered shareholders and beneficial shareholder. The same view has also been held in the following decisions:- i) Impact Containers (P) Ltd., 367 ITR 346; and ii) Universal Medicare (P0 Ltd. 324 ITR 263. In the present case, the assessee is not a beneficial shareholder and hence de hors the proceedings in the case of National Travel Services where addition has been made u/s.2(22)(e), the said condition cannot be sustained in assessee’s hand. 11. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, assessee cannot be considered as benefici…

M/S Wellworth Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1761/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Jyoti Kumari, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Rastogi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…s on deemed dividend, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not a registered shareholder of the payer company and, therefore, in view of the following case laws, the said amount could not be taxed in its hands: – (i) CIT vs Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Bom) (ii) International Technologies Pvt. Ld. In ITA No. 6182/Mum/2008 (iii) CIT vs Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. 11 Taxmann.com 100 (Del) (iv) CIT vs Navyug Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 16 Txmann.com 292 (Del) (v) CIT vs Marketing P. Ltd. 16 Taxmann.com 411 (Del) 10. On the issue of additional payment towards purchase of land, the Ld. AR submitted that the addi…