India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd.

360 ITR 544High Court2014#12686 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd.

Vivek Dattatray Samant, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 3015/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Yasham Bio Dcit 8(3), Sciences Pvt. Ltd.(Now Now Ito 11(3)(4), Known As Yasham Aayakar Bhavan, Speciality Ingredients Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.) , Vs. B/5, Pooja Unit Chs Ltd., Model Town, J.P. Road, 4 Bunglows, Andhra (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacy 2899N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Vivek Dattatray Dcit 8(3), Samant, Now Ito 11(3)(4), 405, Raheja Crest Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, 1 Off Link Orad, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aazps 4623G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against Two Different Orders Dated 23.01.2017 & 06.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v/s Narmina Trade Investment Pvt. Ltd. 388 ITR 243 (Bom) CIT v.s Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 107 DTR 0145, 367 ITR 346: CIT v.s India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v/s Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 544 (Bom) The ld. AR submitted that firstly it has to be decided whether transaction is taxable as a deemed Dividend & if Yes then in whose hands it is taxable whether assessee company or Share holder. The ld AR submitted that the current account or financial Transactions for business between sister concerns under common management for meeting busine…

Yasham Bio Science P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 2723/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Yasham Bio Dcit 8(3), Sciences Pvt. Ltd.(Now Now Ito 11(3)(4), Known As Yasham Aayakar Bhavan, Speciality Ingredients Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.) , Vs. B/5, Pooja Unit Chs Ltd., Model Town, J.P. Road, 4 Bunglows, Andhra (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacy 2899N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Vivek Dattatray Dcit 8(3), Samant, Now Ito 11(3)(4), 405, Raheja Crest Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, 1 Off Link Orad, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aazps 4623G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against Two Different Orders Dated 23.01.2017 & 06.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 660 (Bom) CIT v/s Narmina Trade Investment Pvt. Ltd. 388 ITR 243 (Bom) CIT v.s Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 107 DTR 0145, 367 ITR 346: CIT v.s India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v/s Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 544 (Bom) The ld. AR submitted that firstly it has to be decided whether transaction is taxable as a deemed Dividend & if Yes then in whose hands it is taxable whether assessee company or Share holder. The ld AR submitted that the current account or financial Transactions for business between sister concerns under common management for meeting busine…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vrisa Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4217/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodc.O No. 174/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: S/shri V. Vinod Kumar, Udol Raj Singh, D.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kishore B. Phadke, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…of c. 2(22)(e) would not be attracted. The CIT(A) supported his aforesaid view by relying on the judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Impact Containers (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom) and ACIT Vs. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 544 (Bom). On the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) vacated the addition made by the A.O u/s 2(22)(e) aggregating to Rs. 3,72,94,335/-[Rs. 87,38,000/- (+) Rs. 2,85,56,335/-]. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Departmental representative (for short ‗D.R‘) relied…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 118/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T.Circle-12(2) -Vs.- M/S Shining Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaocs 4689 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…case. In support of its proposition it has relied on the decision of the special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT -vs- Bhowmik Colours (P) Ltd., 118 ITD 1 and the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT-vs-Britto Amusement (P) Ltd., 360 ITR 544. It has been further submitted that in assessee's own case Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in ITA No. 1270/Kol/2015 has given relief to the assessee on the same issue. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submisisons of the assessee. I have also puersued the decisions/judgment cited by the appellant. In these decsions/judgments it has…

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Royal Automobiles P Ltd, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 122/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ao.

Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 121 & 122/Agra/2017 A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-2(1), vs. Royal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Gwalior Chandravadni, Jhansi Road, Gwalior PAN: AACCR 9514 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA Date of Hearing 13/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement 07/12/2017 ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Gwalior for the Assessment…

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Royal Automobiles P Ltd, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 121/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ao.

Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 121 & 122/Agra/2017 A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-2(1), vs. Royal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Gwalior Chandravadni, Jhansi Road, Gwalior PAN: AACCR 9514 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA Date of Hearing 13/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement 07/12/2017 ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Gwalior for the Assessment…

D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. M/S Prem Motors Pvt Ltd., Gwalior

The appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 327/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 40A(2)(b)

…hPvt Ltd and others 340 ITR 14 (Del) CIT Vs AR Magnetics (P) Ltd (2014) 220 Taxman 209 (Del. HC) CIT Vs Daisy Packers (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 331 (Guj. HC) CIT VsSuram Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 327 (Raj. HC) ACIT Vs Britto Amusement P. Ltd (2014) 360 ITR 544 (Bom. HC) CIT Vs Hotel Hilltop – 313 ITR 116 (Raj) CIT Vs Universal Medicare P. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 (Mum) 5.3.3 I am also of the view that the dividend even under section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of the shareholder. As the appellant is neither a beneficial nor a registered shareholder of Vinayaka Farms & Resorts (I) Pvt Ltd and thus a…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shining Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 2(22)(e)

…le in the facts of the assessee’s case and even the ld. D.R. has not been able to raise any argument to dispute this position. On the other hand, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT –vs.- Britto Amusement Pvt. Limited reported in 360 ITR 544 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese is directly applicable in the facts of the assessee’s case, wherein the loan amount was received by the assesee-company from a lending company, in which it was not the shareholder. The shares of lending company were held by the shareholders of the assesee-company in their individual capacity. In these fac…

India Capital Market (P.) Ltd. (Bombay) 387 ITR 510 ACIT v. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. (360 ITR 544) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax