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.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Wellworth Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1675/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…

Shiv Transport & Travels, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-56(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 889/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Gayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 77A

…non-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 16. 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, I am of the view that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee’s case. 17. Besides the above, I am also of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court…

Periwinkle Fashions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Asst

ITA 4788/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Rajiv Pant
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…s Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Asst. year 2010-11. In its order in ITA No. 388/Mum/2014 dt. 21/08/2015, the co-ordinate bench following the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., (324 ITR 263) (Bom) held that since the assessee is not a shareholder in the said concern, M/s. Tainwala Holdings Pvt. Ltd., such amount could not be assessed 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12 in the hands of the assessee. At paras 5 to 7 of its order the co-ordinate bench held as under:- 5. With respect to the addition of Rs. 28,74,875/-, considered as ‘deemed…

M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 405/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: None
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 263

…on-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.” 6.6. 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.). 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. 6.7. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the order of CIT cannot be sustai…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Geebs Healthcare Solutions P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3338/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Mamdeo
Section 10BSection 143(3)

…urisdictional High Court. However, it needs to be mentioned that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has confirmed the view expressed by the Tribunal, Special Bench, while dismissing the Department’s appeal in case of CIT v/s Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.). Thus, as the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited supra, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds no.6 and 7 are dismissed. 15. In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronoun…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Dina Sudhir Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4184/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Uday B JakkeFor Respondent: Dr.P.Daniel
Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं संदीप गोसाई, न्याययक सदस्य के सभऺ BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner of बिधम/ Smt.Dina Sudhir Shah, Income Tax , 16(3), 535, Panchratna, Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AAOPS6594…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Praveen B. Napate, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis
Section 2(22)(e)

…Mum – ITAT), wherein one of us (AM) is a party to the said order [ITA Nos. 4363 to 4364, 4440 & 4495 of 2011, dated 20.3.2013]. The said proposition is approved by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.). Para 8 of the said judgment of the High Court is relevant in this regard. 3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited precedents and also considering the above settled nature of the issue that unless the assessee is a shareholder, no amount can be taxed as ‘deemed dividend…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…hareholder and if it is not so established, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: − CIT vs. Ankitech (P.) Ltd.: 318 ITR 376 (Del) − CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. : 324 ITR 263 (Bom) − CIT vs. Suram Holdings (P.) Ltd.: 220 Taxman 327 (Raj.) − ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd.: 118 ITD 1 (MUM.) (SB) 87.13 In the instant case, the assessee did not have any ‘direct shareholding’ in BRPL in the assessment year under consideration and was therefore not a ‘shareholder’ in BRPL. 87.14. In view of the above, it is respectfully s…

National Academy of Construction vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) -I

ITTA/474/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Manmati Arcade Pvt L

RP/322/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 260Section 4

…1987 bearing Circular No.495. 9 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 natur…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd

ITA/462/2009HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. Page 1 of 50 REPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA No.462 of 2009 with ITA Nos. 2087/2010, 901/2010, 902/2010, 903/2010, 960/2010, 1327/2010, 1436/2010, 1502/2010, 1865/2010, 461/2010, 998/2009, 1421/2009, 1618/2010, 1758/2010, 1978/2010, 622/2011, 623/2011, 270/20111588/2010, 211/2010, 352/2010 & 2014/2010. Reserved On: April 27, 2011. % Pronounced On: May 11, 2011. 1) ITA No.462 of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT V…