ITO v. Gordhandas Khimji

11 ITD 158Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1985#14735 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profits section 2(22)compulsory acquisition deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)beneficial owner previous year person company india business interest

Judgments citing ITO v. Gordhandas Khimji

DR. L.S. RAVI PRAKASH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 30/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 78

…ther, as discussed in earlier opening balance of loan could not be considered for additions in the current year u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as deemed dividend. It is to be noted that Coordinate Bench of Cochin Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Gordhandas Khimji (1985) 11 ITD 158 (Coch.) wherein held that opening balance of advances has to be excluded irrespective of the fact where the same treated as deemed dividend in the earlier year or not. Same view has taken by coordinate bench of Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Mola Sadhani in MA No.620/Mum/2006 in which mistake committed in relation to opening balance had been rectified…

M/S. DEVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2644/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

…ya Prasad (supra). 8. We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Visakhapatnam bench in the case of P. Satya Prasad (supra) had followed the decision rendered by Cochin bench of Tribunal in the case of Gordhan Das Khimji (1985) 11 ITD 158, wherein it was held that the deemed dividend assessable in any of the earlier years has to be reduced from the accumulated profits even it was not assessed in that year. The discussion made by the Tribunal in the case of P Satya Prasad (supra) are extracted below:- 11 ITA No2644/Bang/2019. M/s.Davanam Constructions Private Limited. “14. The cont…

M/S ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds 3

ITA 563/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

…a Prasad (supra). 8. We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Visakhapatnam bench in the case of P. Satya Prasad (supra) had followed the decision rendered by Cochin bench of Tribunal in the case of Gordhan Das Khimji (1985) 11 ITD 158, wherein it was held that the deemed dividend assessable in any of the earlier years has to be reduced from the accumulated profits even it was not assessed in that year. The discussion made by the Tribunal in the case of P Satya Prasad (supra) are extracted below:- “14. The contention of the assessee is that the amount of deemed dividend, which…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6168/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 40

…e has to be treated as deemed dividend, the addition is untenable, since the amount received in earlier years has to be deducted while computing the accumulated profits for the instant year. The Cochin Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Gordhandas Khimji 11 ITD 158 has held as under: “9. We may now refer to the decisions cited. It was held by the Bombay High Court in P.K. Badiani’s case (supra) that section 2(6A)(e ), hereinafter referred to as the section, must be so interpreted that once an amount goes out of the accumulated profits as a loan and the loan is to be deemed to be dividend, the A.Y. 2013-14 9…

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. SRI.BABY MATHEW, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed,

ITA 269/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(22)(e)

…rking of the accumulated profit and deemed dividend, based on the decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of P. Satya Prasad vs. ITO (141 ITD 403) which followed the decision of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of ITO vs. Gordhandas Khimji (11 ITD 158) which in turn again considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (108 ITR 345), the deemed dividend which can be considered for taxation u/s. 2(22)(e) as ordered by the Tribunal can be worked out only in the case of Manaltheeram Beach Resorts (P) Ltd. to a sum of Rs.26,49,634/- but not in the case of o…

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)

…sed in any of the earlier years, should also be reduced from the accumulated profit even if it was not assessed as deemed dividend in that year. 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…