IT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi HC) 3) Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

339 ITR 157High Court2012#20558 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing IT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi HC) 3) Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…pellant relied on the following decisions in his submissions: 1) CIT Vs. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Delhi HC) 2) CIT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi HC) 3) Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Calcutta HC) 4) CIT Vs. Gurbachanlal 339 ITR 157 (Delhi HC) 12.3 The Hon'ble HC of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 mentioned above explained the meaning of (loan/advance' provided in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It has been ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 40 of 78 held that trade advances which are in the mon…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…pellant relied on the following decisions in his submissions: 1) CIT Vs. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Delhi HC) 2) CIT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi HC) 3) Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Calcutta HC) 4) CIT Vs. Gurbachanlal 339 ITR 157 (Delhi HC) 12.3 The Hon'ble HC of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 mentioned above explained the meaning of (loan/advance' provided in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It has been ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 40 of 78 held that trade advances which are in the mon…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…oney according to the agreement and in the case of the latter it is generally the duty of the depositor to go to the banker or to the depositee, as the case may be, and make a demand for it.” 3.33 The Delhi High Court in CIT v Visisth Chay Vypapar Ltd (2012) 339 ITR 157 explaining the features of the terms ‘loan’ and ‘deposit’ made the following observations: “It is rightly held by the Tribunal, on the analysis of various judgments of our Courts which are referred to by Mr. Vohra as well and already noticed above, there are three main test between the loan and deposit. These are:- (i) A loan is payable immediate…

ACIT (TDS), Jaipur vs. Gnadhi Vidhya Mandir, Churu

ITA 1016/JPR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri M.L. Borad (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…ng outcomes customers want to achieve but without the ownership specific costs and risks” whereas in the instant case the cost and risks or outcomes are with the study centres. Reliance is placed on the judgment of CIT vs. Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. Reported in 339 ITR 157 (Del). 4.9 It was further submitted that in a recent judgment reported in (2014) 369 ITR 392 (Raj), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court-Jaipur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs. Samtel Glass Ltd. has stated that “It would be too much to stretch the plain and simple reading of technical services”. While dealing with the provis…

IT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi HC) 3) Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT (339 ITR 157) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax