Gopal & Sons (HUF) v. CIT

391 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2017#5133 most cited

What is Gopal & Sons (HUF) v. CIT authority for?

A payment made to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) by a company in which the HUF holds substantial shares is considered a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) if the HUF is considered a 'concern' and its member has a significant entitlement to its income.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Gopal & Sons (HUF) v. CIT · Section 2(22) · deemed dividend · HUF · concern · beneficial shareholder

Issues it is cited on

resulting companyaccumulated profitsdemergersection 2(22)deemed dividendamalgamationprofits and gains of business or professionsection 12section 11transferpersoncompany

Judgments citing Gopal & Sons (HUF) v. CIT

LIFE SPAN INFRASTRUCTURE ( INDIA) PVT LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5), TRIVANDRUM

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 139/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Life Span Infrastructure (India) The Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward - 2(5), Trivandrum Tc-4/2554(3), Indraprastham Vs. Pattom P.O. Kowdiar Road Trivandrum 695004 [Pan: Aabcl7856M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…al with the contention raised by the learned DR at the time of hearing as discussed above after referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT reported in 77 Taxmann.com 71. In Gopal And Sons (HUF) v. CIT [2017] 391 ITR 1/77 taxmann.com 71/245 Taxman 48 (SC) the assessee a HUF received a loan from a company in which it had 37.12% of the total shareholdings. The shares were issued in the name of Karta and in the return filed to the ROC it was stated by the company that the registered ownership was in the name of Karta and the HUF was the beneficial shareholder. The a…

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar&For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32A

…ng bifurcation. 17 The decisions of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court which state when in ambiguity or when two views are possible the issue has to be answered in favour of the tax payer are shown below: :- 19 -: M/s Maheswari Mining & Energy Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 391 ITR 1 @9 (SC) 300 ITR 231 @242 (SC) 89 ITR 236 @240 (SC) 89 ITR 251 @257 (SC) 77 ITR 518 @530 (SC) 18 For all the above reasons it is prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT be pleased to allow the appeal and direct the allowance U/s.32AD be allowed, for the Asst.Year 2016-17 of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 In addition to the above, the ld. AR of the assessee filed add…

GLOBAL BUSINESS CONEXXTIONS PVT.LTD.,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 720/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…made by the Assessing Officer under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act on merits observing that the issue has not yet attained finality by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal & Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT, Kolkata- XI : (2017) 391 ITR 1. Thus, both, Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have kept the issue alive in view of the facts that according to Assessing Officer/CIT(A) the legal issue arising in the facts of the present case relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act has not yet attained finality. As on date the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High…

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…pproved. The Appellant further submits while interpreting a deeming provision, in case of an ambiguity, it has to be resolved in favour of the Assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons HUF vs. CIT 391 ITR 1 (Para 12, Pg. 562, Pg. 558-563 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II. ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 102. In view of the aforesaid the Appellant submits that provisions of section 2(22)(a) of the Act are not applicable in the facts of the given case. Ground No. 5 of Assessee‘s Appeal and 1 – 6 of Revenue‘s appeal: 103.…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…pproved. The Appellant further submits while interpreting a deeming provision, in case of an ambiguity, it has to be resolved in favour of the Assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons HUF vs. CIT 391 ITR 1 (Para 12, Pg. 562, Pg. 558-563 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II. ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 102. In view of the aforesaid the Appellant submits that provisions of section 2(22)(a) of the Act are not applicable in the facts of the given case. Ground No. 5 of Assessee‘s Appeal and 1 – 6 of Revenue‘s appeal: 103.…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMIT INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2259/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2259/Ahd/2016 With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 D.C.I.T., M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Iscon House, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Nr. Citi Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…al with the contention raised by the learned DR at the time of hearing as discussed above after referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT reported in 77 Taxmann.com 71. In Gopal And Sons (HUF) v. CIT [2017] 391 ITR 1/77 taxmann.com 71/245 Taxman 48 (SC) the assessee a HUF received a loan from a company in which it had 37.12% of the total shareholdings. The shares were issued in the name of Karta and in the return filed to the ROC it was stated by the company that the registered ownership was in the name of Karta and the HUF was the beneficial shareholder. The a…

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. HERBERT BORWN PHARMACEUTICALS & RESEARCH LABORATORIES, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2774/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh
Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2774/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3, Kalyan, Dist. Thane v/s Herbert Brown Pharmaceuticals & Research Laboratories W-256/257/258–A, MIDC ……………. Respondent Phase–II, Shivaji Udyog Nagar Dombivali (E), Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAAFH7347B Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh Assessee by : None Date of Hearing – 23.02.2021 Date of Order – 10.03.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The aforesaid appea…

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NIYAMIT,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1699/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sharanabasaveshwar Credit The Income Tax Officer, Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Ward – 2, Post:Halingali, Tq. Jamakhandi, Vs. Bagalkot. Dt. Bagalkot. Pan : Aaeas 6699 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ashok G. Mudnur, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh G. R, Standing Counsel To Department Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2020 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Belgaum, Dated 07.06.2019, For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Ashok G. Mudnur, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh G. R, Standing Counsel to Department
Section 80P

…iate members and hence the assessee has violated the provisions of Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act. The Bench wanted to know as to how the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. ACIT reported in 391 ITR 1 is not applicable in the present case because in that case, the assessee society was following the relevant provisions of Co-operative Societies Act and because of this reason, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the assessee society is not a Co-operative Page 3 of 5 Society and hence is not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Ac…

M/S. KANAKADAS PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kanakadas Pattin Sahakari Sangh The Income Tax Officer, Niyamit, Ward – 1, Opp. Tahasildar Office, Vs. Bagalkot. Post : Badami, Dt.Bagalkot. Pan : Aabak 7154 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Jeevan Kishore P, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh G. R, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2019 O R D E R This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Belgaum, Dated 31.03.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Jeevan Kishore P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh G. R, Standing Counsel
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ative Societies Act, there is a limit of 15% of associate members of the total members of the society. The Bench also pointed out that the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. ACIT reported in 391 ITR 1. The Bench wanted to know as to whether any of the findings of the CIT(A) is incorrect. In reply, learned AR of the assessee had nothing to say. As against this, the learned DR of the Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A) and reliance was placed by him on the Tribunal order in M/s. Athmashakthi Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. ITO in…

SRINIVASA MACHINE WORKS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

ITA 844/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 80G

…ctly attracted in respect of the loan received by the assessee from the said company. The ld.DR invited our :-7-: ITA Nos. 1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 844/Chny/2017 attention to the Honourable Supreme Court decisions in the cases of M/s. Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs CIT 391 ITR 1 SC and National Travel Services v CIT, Delhi, VIII 89 taxmann.com 332 SC dt 18.01. 2018 wherein the matter was referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute an appropriate Bench of three learned Judges in order to have a relook at the entire question. 4.2 We heard the rival submissions and gone through relevant material. The un…

SRINIVASA MACHINE WORKS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

ITA 3434/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 80G

…ctly attracted in respect of the loan received by the assessee from the said company. The ld.DR invited our :-7-: ITA Nos. 1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 844/Chny/2017 attention to the Honourable Supreme Court decisions in the cases of M/s. Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs CIT 391 ITR 1 SC and National Travel Services v CIT, Delhi, VIII 89 taxmann.com 332 SC dt 18.01. 2018 wherein the matter was referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute an appropriate Bench of three learned Judges in order to have a relook at the entire question. 4.2 We heard the rival submissions and gone through relevant material. The un…

SRINIVASA MACHINE WORKS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

ITA 1969/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.844/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Srinivasa Machine Works, No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), 1St Lane, Nungambakkam High Chennai. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaqfs2166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 80G

…ctly attracted in respect of the loan received by the assessee from the said company. The ld.DR invited our :-7-: ITA Nos. 1969 & 3434/Chny/2016 844/Chny/2017 attention to the Honourable Supreme Court decisions in the cases of M/s. Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs CIT 391 ITR 1 SC and National Travel Services v CIT, Delhi, VIII 89 taxmann.com 332 SC dt 18.01. 2018 wherein the matter was referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute an appropriate Bench of three learned Judges in order to have a relook at the entire question. 4.2 We heard the rival submissions and gone through relevant material. The un…

ASST CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWELS INTERNATONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5971/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…A) to take a view that only registered shareholder takes loan from a company then provisions of Section 2(22)(e) will come into operation. The learned D.R. referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs. CIT (2017) 391 ITR 1 submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has put an end to M/s. Sunjewelas International P. Ltd. the controversy and held that even a beneficial shareholder holding substantial interest in a company or firm which receives loans and advances from other company then provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act will come into operation and loans and adva…

ITO 7(2)(4, MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWLES INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5549/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…A) to take a view that only registered shareholder takes loan from a company then provisions of Section 2(22)(e) will come into operation. The learned D.R. referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs. CIT (2017) 391 ITR 1 submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has put an end to M/s. Sunjewelas International P. Ltd. the controversy and held that even a beneficial shareholder holding substantial interest in a company or firm which receives loans and advances from other company then provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act will come into operation and loans and adva…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. SEEMA DEVI BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6462/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…xcess withdrawals, even though adjusted against credit balance before close of year, was assessable as deemed dividend in assessee's hands in terms of section 2(22)(e) 2. Gopal And Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC)/2017 245 Taxman 48 (SC)[2017] 391 ITR 1 (SC)/[2017] 291 CTR 321 (SC) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if HUF is not a registered shareholder in lending company, advances/loans received by HUF is taxable as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) if Karta-shareholder has substantial interest in HUF. 3. CIT Vs Mukundrav K. Shah r20071 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/r20071 290 ITR 433 (SC)/…

ACIT - 16(1), MUMBAI vs. CINE STUDIOS, MUMBAI

ITA 2794/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Acit-16(1), M/S Cine Studios Room. No. 439, Shree Sound Complex, बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Madhav Das Pasta Road, M.K. Road, Vs. Dadar (E) Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400014 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafc2778B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…idend under Sec. 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee firm, took support of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of National Travel Services Vs. CIT-VIII, Delhi (2018) 89 taxman.com 332 (SC) and Gopal & Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT, Kolkata-XI (2017) 391 ITR 1 (SC). Per contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee submitted that as the assessee firm was neither the beneficial owner nor a registered owner of the shares of either of the aforesaid companies, therefore, no addition in respect of deemed dividend under Sec. 2(22)(e) was called for in its hands. It was submitted…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 832/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…. AR that the assessee being a partnership firm cannot be a shareholder of a company, thus, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not attracted. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gopal and sons (HUF) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 391 ITR 1 has held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) get attracted even in case of „beneficial shareholder‟. Here it would be relevant to refer to provisions of section 2(22)(e) and Explanation 3 to section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The same are reproduced here-in-below : “(22) dividend includes – (a) …………… (b) …………… (c) …………… (d) …………… (e) any payment by a…

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…. AR that the assessee being a partnership firm cannot be a shareholder of a company, thus, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not attracted. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gopal and sons (HUF) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 391 ITR 1 has held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) get attracted even in case of „beneficial shareholder‟. Here it would be relevant to refer to provisions of section 2(22)(e) and Explanation 3 to section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The same are reproduced here-in-below : “(22) dividend includes – (a) …………… (b) …………… (c) …………… (d) …………… (e) any payment by a…

VITAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1184/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sankaranarayanan, CA
Section 2(22)(e)

…e only moot question here is whether the dividend is taxable in the hands of the shareholder who has substantial interest in both the companies or in the hands of the appellant company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons (HUF) vsCIT [2017 391 ITR 1] held that "Even if we presume that it is not a registered shareholder, as per the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, once the payment is received by the HUP and shareholder (Mr.Sanei, karta, in this case) is CL member of the said HUF and he has subetantial interest in the HUF, the payment made to the HUF shall constitute deemed dividend wi…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

C.A. No.-020854-020854 - 2017Supreme Court05 Dec 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

Section 263Section 33BSection 80

…agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank. The assessee was held not to be entitled to the said incentive as business of the assessee was held to be finance business to which the incentive was not 2 391 ITR 1 = (2017) 9 SCC 364 21 admissible even though the principle of liberal interpretation in terms of Bajaj Tempo (supra) was applied. 18. In State of Haryana versus Bharti Teletech Ltd.3, eligibility of an assessee to get benefit of exemption from tax was an issue. It was observed that while the exemption notification should be liberally cons…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2