DCIT v. MAIPO India Ltd.

24 SOT 42Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#15459 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing DCIT v. MAIPO India Ltd.

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

…alance sheet entry at Page 76, indicating debit to securities account] which is not part of accumulated profits as defined in explanation 2 to section 2(22). In this regard, the ld AR relied on the decision of the Delhi ITAT in DCIT vs. MAIPO India Ltd [2008] 24 SOT 42 (Delhi) wherein while dealing with the provisions of section 78 of the Companies Act it is held that section 78 places a statutory bar on the usage of securities premium whereby the same can be utilised only for the purposes mentioned therein and not for any other purposes. It was submitted that one of the purposes envisaged is the payment of premi…

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

…alance sheet entry at Page 76, indicating debit to securities account] which is not part of accumulated profits as defined in explanation 2 to section 2(22). In this regard, the ld AR relied on the decision of the Delhi ITAT in DCIT vs. MAIPO India Ltd [2008] 24 SOT 42 (Delhi) wherein while dealing with the provisions of section 78 of the Companies Act it is held that section 78 places a statutory bar on the usage of securities premium whereby the same can be utilised only for the purposes mentioned therein and not for any other purposes. It was submitted that one of the purposes envisaged is the payment of premi…

LOKESH R. AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6921/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 2(22)(e)

…ulated profits”. Though the tax authorities have 4 Lokesh R. Agarwal rejected this contention of the assessee, we notice that the same finds support from the following case law atleast in respect of Share Premium account:- (a) DCIT Vs. MAIPO India Ltd (2008)(24 SOT 42)(Delhi) (b) DCIT Vs. Radhe Sham Jain (2012)(2013)(140 ITD 244)(Chand) Hence we are of the view that there is merit in this contention in respect of Share premium balance. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the impugned loan taken by the assessee cannot be assessed as deemed dividend in terms of the provisions of sec.…

LATE RAMESH CHAND GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(4), Late Ramesh Chand Goyal Through L/H Smt. Manorma New Delhi Goyal, A-15/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aagpg7119L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.L. Dua, Adv. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

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

…ioner of Income Tax (Appeals) might be directed to allow the appeal of the assessee on this grounds. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions: I. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maipo India Ltd., (ITAT, Delhi), 24 SOT 42 II. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radhe Sham Jain (ITAT, Chandigarh), ITA No. 728(CHD.) of 2011, dated September 28, 2012. 9.1 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radheshyam Jain (supra), the Tribunal has decided the issue that the…

MOHIT KAMBOJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3366/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 2(22)(e)

…ubmitted that the amounts received by the assessee as Share premium shall not form part of “accumulated profits” and in this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of MAIPO India Limited (2008)(24 SOT 42). By placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K.Badani Vs. CIT (1970)(76 ITR 369), the assessee submitted that the deemed dividend, if any, assessed in the earlier years should be excluded while computing accumulated profits for the current year. The Ld CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee a…

MOHIT KAMBOJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3365/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 2(22)(e)

…ubmitted that the amounts received by the assessee as Share premium shall not form part of “accumulated profits” and in this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of MAIPO India Limited (2008)(24 SOT 42). By placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K.Badani Vs. CIT (1970)(76 ITR 369), the assessee submitted that the deemed dividend, if any, assessed in the earlier years should be excluded while computing accumulated profits for the current year. The Ld CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee a…

DCIT v. MAIPO India Ltd. (24 SOT 42) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax