Commissioner of Income Tax v. Printwave Services P. Ltd. (373 ITR 665)

Q: What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Printwave Services P. Ltd. authority for?

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) can only be taxed in the hands of a substantial or beneficial shareholder. If the assessee is not a registered shareholder, the ratio of this case applies.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Printwave Services P. Ltd.?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Printwave Services P. Ltd. (373 ITR 665), spanning 2016 to 2024.

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

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

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…. 4.4. In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax VS.Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr.Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) VS. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1.In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

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

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…. 4.4. In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax VS.Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr.Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) VS. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1.In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

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

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…. 4.4. In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax VS.Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr.Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) VS. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1.In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

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

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…. 4.4. In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax VS.Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr.Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) VS. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1.In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

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

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…. 4.4. In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax VS.Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr.Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) VS. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1.In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…y. 4.4 In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr. Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1 In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…y. 4.4 In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr. Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1 In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…y. 4.4 In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr. Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1 In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…y. 4.4 In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr. Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1 In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal an…

DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai vs. M/S. Susee Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 832/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, CIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [PAN: AAOCS-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner of M/s.…

M/S Susee Automotive (P) Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -2, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 784/CHNY/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, CIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [PAN: AAOCS-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner of M/s.…

Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 545/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR

Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, CIT(A), NFAC, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate PratyakshakarBhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AFNPG 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue by : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR : Date of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date of pronouncement 22/05/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee has…

JCIT (OSD), CC - 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Aban Investment Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 380/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.380/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax (Osd), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…the deemed dividend would therefore arise in the hands of these shareholders, if any. As regards the assessee is concerned, it is not a registered shareholder and therefore, the ratio of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Printwave Services P Ltd 373 ITR 665 (Mad) would apply squarely to its case. By elaborately discussing the above case law and in the present case, since the assessee is not the beneficial shareholder in M/s. Aban Infrastructure P. Ltd. or Aban Hotels & Resorts P. Ltd, the ld. CIT(A) has held that no deemed dividend can be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee under section 2(2…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 935/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

Section 14ASection 57

…e shareholders if any. This 8 I.T.A. Nos.933 to 935/Chny/17 issue has not been examined by the AO. As regards the appellant is concerned it is not a registered shareholder and therefore the ratio of the jurisdictional court in CIT v. Printwave Services P Ltd 373 ITR 665 (Mad) would apply squarely to its case. The appellant has no doubt pressed into service Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v Ankitch P Ltd (supra). 16. In this context reference is invited to the case-law relied upon by the appellant. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Printwaves Services P Ltd 373 ITR 665 have held that deemed rec…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 934/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

Section 14ASection 57

…e shareholders if any. This 8 I.T.A. Nos.933 to 935/Chny/17 issue has not been examined by the AO. As regards the appellant is concerned it is not a registered shareholder and therefore the ratio of the jurisdictional court in CIT v. Printwave Services P Ltd 373 ITR 665 (Mad) would apply squarely to its case. The appellant has no doubt pressed into service Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v Ankitch P Ltd (supra). 16. In this context reference is invited to the case-law relied upon by the appellant. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Printwaves Services P Ltd 373 ITR 665 have held that deemed rec…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 933/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.933, 934 & 935/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aban Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aaaca2926J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 03.02.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, All Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The First Common Ground Raised In All The Appeals Of The Revenue Relates To Restriction Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D.

Section 14ASection 57

…e shareholders if any. This 8 I.T.A. Nos.933 to 935/Chny/17 issue has not been examined by the AO. As regards the appellant is concerned it is not a registered shareholder and therefore the ratio of the jurisdictional court in CIT v. Printwave Services P Ltd 373 ITR 665 (Mad) would apply squarely to its case. The appellant has no doubt pressed into service Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v Ankitch P Ltd (supra). 16. In this context reference is invited to the case-law relied upon by the appellant. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Printwaves Services P Ltd 373 ITR 665 have held that deemed rec…

DCIT Corporate Range 1 (OSD), Chennai vs. Displaytronics Reader Devices Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1643/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA

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

…lso shareholders of Nine Star Technologies. The Ld. AR relied on the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act CBDT Circular and judicial decisions. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of the jurisdictional High Court m/s Printwave Services Private Limited 373 ITR 665(Mds) and observed that The dividend income can be taxable only in the hands of substantive shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) viewed that the Director Mr. V. Gopalakrishnan hold 40% of the shares in the assessee company, though holds 40% shares in the Nine Star Technologies. The assessee company is not beneficial shareholder of Nine Star Technologies L…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No.1774/Kol/2016 A.Y 2006-07 D.C.I.T, Cir-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) I.T.A No.1718/Kol/2016 A.Y 2007-08 A.C.I.T, C.C 4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Ld. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Smt. Shikha Agarwal, Aca, Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shikha Agarwal, ACA, ld.AR

Section 143(3)

…y. 4.4 In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5. Mr. Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Incometax, KolkataXI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1 In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Subhavarsha Infotech, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed whereas that of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2805/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

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

…es, was given as loan to one Smt. Priya Rachel who was the wife of a friend of one of the partners. Assessee relied on a judgment ITA No.2365& 2805 /2016 :- 4 -: of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd, (2015) 373 ITR 665. Another submission made by the assessee was that the advances could also be considered as inter corporate deposit. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the 7. above reply. According to him, assessee had maintained separate trading ledger in the name of M/s. Symbiotic Infotech P. Ltd and had shown trading advances separately. A…

Subhavarsha Infotech, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed whereas that of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2365/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

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

…es, was given as loan to one Smt. Priya Rachel who was the wife of a friend of one of the partners. Assessee relied on a judgment ITA No.2365& 2805 /2016 :- 4 -: of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd, (2015) 373 ITR 665. Another submission made by the assessee was that the advances could also be considered as inter corporate deposit. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the 7. above reply. According to him, assessee had maintained separate trading ledger in the name of M/s. Symbiotic Infotech P. Ltd and had shown trading advances separately. A…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Printwave Services P. Ltd.

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Printwave Services P. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Printwave Services P. Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai vs. M/S. Susee Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Madurai

M/S Susee Automotive (P) Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -2, Madurai

Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

JCIT (OSD), CC - 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Aban Investment Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aban Investments P Ltd., Chennai

DCIT Corporate Range 1 (OSD), Chennai vs. Displaytronics Reader Devices Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd., Kolkata

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Subhavarsha Infotech, Chennai

Subhavarsha Infotech, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai