(i). AR Chadha & Co. India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

133 TTJ 490Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22415 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing (i). AR Chadha & Co. India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Dr. Manju Dang, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6421/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 2(22)(e)

…ment order and supported by PB 102-103 and thus, no addition can be made in the hands of the ITA Nos. 6421/Del/2016 & 4538/Del/2017 11 appellant in the year under consideration in view of the following judicial decisions:- 332 ITR 63 (Bom) 120 TTJ 1004 (Kol) 133 TTJ 490 (Del) 3.3 Third contention on behalf of the assessee has been that there was no flow of money from DDLPL to the appellant and transfer was by way of book entry, hence, provisions of section 2(22)(e) is not applicable as held in: (i). CIT vs. Smt. Savithri Sam 144 CTR 17 (Mad)/ 236 ITR 1003 (Mad) (ii). ACIT vs. Lakshmi Kutty Narayan 112 TTJ 396 (…

Bharat Bir Mohindra, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 462/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 462/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gangadhara Sastry, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. P. Suresh Rao, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ar. This view is fortified by the decision rendered by the Cochin Bench of Tribunal in the case of Gordhindas Khimji (11 ITD 158 (Cochin)) and also the decision rendered by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of A.R. Chadha & Co India (P.) Ltd. VS. DCIT (133 TTJ 490). We have already noticed that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in M.B.Stock Holding Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT has explained about the area of operation of Explanation 2 to sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act and we have also concurred with the view that the accumulated profit does not include current year’s profit from business. Accordingly, in our view, the…

Shrinivasa A. Pawar, Mumbai vs. ACIT ., Range-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6148/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6148/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 A N D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3746/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Mr. Shrinivas A. Pawar, The Acit, Range 7(2), बनाम/ 53, Dutta Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Vijay Manjrekar Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Gokhale Road (North), Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Afwpp 3313A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Pankaj R. Toprani अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.M. Makwana

For Respondent: Shri G.M. Makwana

Section 2(22)(e)

…Bench in the case of ITO Vs Gordhandas Khimji (1985) 11 IRS 158 and also s the decision of Viskhapatname Bench in the case of P. Satya Prasad Vs ITO ITA No. 293/Vizag/2012 dated 16.11.2012 and Delhi Bench in the case of A.R. Chadha & Co. India (P) Ltd Vs DCIT 133 TTJ 490 (Del). Respectfully following the decision of the Co- ordinate benches, we restore this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to recompute the accumulated profit after reducing the amount of loan already treated as deemed dividend in earlier assessment years and decide the issue afresh. This ground of the assessee is treated as allowed…