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

373 ITR 665High Court2015#4553 most cited

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.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Printwave Services P Ltd · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · substantial shareholder · beneficial shareholder · closely held company · loan or advance · accumulated profits

Also reported as

53 Taxmann.com 3

Issues it is cited on

closely held companysection 47accumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)beneficial ownerdirect tax vivad se vishwasliable to taxsection 56escapement of incomevivad se vishwas

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

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)

…. 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…

DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Gkk Exports Pvt.Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2146/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2146/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs.Sumathi Venkataraman
Section 195Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2146/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s.GKK Exports Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2(1), No.40/7, Ramakrishna Street, Chennai-600 034. T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [PAN: AAACG 1568 J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Revenue by : Mrs.Sumathi Venkataraman, JCIT Assessee by : None : 24.05.2018 सु…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Grandeur Wear Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 874/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…d/ modified in accordance with law and from the facts of the case’’. ITA No.874/Mds/2017. :- 7 -: Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd (2015) 373 ITR 665 held that assessee not being a registered or beneficial shareholder in UTPL, the sum received could not be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22) (e) of the Act. On other aspects of the addition, raised by the assessee through its grounds, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not give any finding. 4. Now before me, ld. Departme…

ITO, Chennai vs. Veeyan Associates, Chennai

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

ITA 1150/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1150/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, M/S Veeyan Associates, Kasi Arcade, 1St Floor, Non Corporate Ward 14(4), V. Chennai. No.116/22, Sir Thiyagaraya Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. Pan : Aaifv 2054 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. Philip George, Advocate
Section 2(22)(e)

…the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of the shareholder of the company and not in the hands of third party. Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in Printwave Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 665), the Ld.counsel submitted that deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of the registered or owner of the shares and not in the hands of the third party. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tallboy Stationery Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 2292/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Koli, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 2(22)(e)

…s. In the case before us, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee-company is not a shareholder of Chennai Micro Print Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Printwave Services P. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 665 and the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 in I.T.A. No. 562/Mds/2015, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tallboy Stationery Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 2291/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Koli, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 2(22)(e)

…s. In the case before us, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee-company is not a shareholder of Chennai Micro Print Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Printwave Services P. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 665 and the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 in I.T.A. No. 562/Mds/2015, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee…