Gopal & Sons (HUF) v. CIT

391 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2017#5048 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 366,314 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

Read the full judgment

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

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed

ITA 274/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 14(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…s 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, advanceslloans received by HUF is taxable as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). if Karta-shareholder has substantial interest in HUF. 5 3. CIT Vs Mukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/{2007] 290 ITR 433 (…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack vs. M/S. Mahimananda Mishra, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Ctk/2016 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. M/S Mahimananda Mishra Oriya Bazar, P.O.Buxi Bazar, Cuttack स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaffm 2518 J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Saswat Acharya, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, In Appeal No.147/2014-15, Dated 16.11.2015, Passed U/S.143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 01. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Deemed Dividend In The Hands Of The Assessee, Since The Requisite Conditions Prescribed In The Section 2(22)(E) Have Been Fulfilled In This Case. 02. Whether In The Facts & In Circumstance Of The Case, The Id.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition On The Basis Of Observation That No Deemed Dividend Could Be Assessed In The Hands Of The Assessee Since The Assessee Firm Itself Was Not A Shareholder In The Payer Company, Which Is Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T.Act. 03. Any Other Matter, If Any, Shall Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Labour Contract In The Brand Name Of M/S Mahimananda Mishra & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Saswat Acharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CITDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…le contention of the ld. DR that the deemed dividend has to be taxed in the hands of the partnership firm not in the hands of partner as beneficial partner whereas the ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal And Sons (HUF), 391 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15 & 16 held as under :- 15. Explanation 3(a) defines "concern" to mean HUF or a firm or an association of persons or a body of individuals or a company. As per Explanation 3(b), a person shall be deemed to have a substantial interest in a HUF if he is, at any time during the previous year, beneficial…

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 423/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

…idering the combined voting power of the assessee and the assessee’s subsidiary M/s. Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd in M/s. Mega Resources Ltd and in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs CIT 391 ITR 1(SC). We have perused the above decision. In the aforesaid decision the question that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to whether when a karta of the HUF is a shareholder in the lending company and when the lending company has given loans to HUF whether the holding of shares by the karta has to be considered as holding of shares by…