Kantilal Manilal v. CIT

41 ITR 275Supreme Court of India1961#8467 most cited

What is Kantilal Manilal v. CIT authority for?

Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act creates a legal fiction deeming certain receipts or parts thereof as dividend for the purpose of income-tax levy.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Kantilal Manilal v. CIT · section 2(22) · deemed dividend · income tax · dividend for tax purposes · legal fiction · accumulated profits · loan to shareholder

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Kantilal Manilal v. CIT

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…le. 15 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. In Kantilal Manilal v.CIT [1961] 41 ITR 275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section 2(22) certain amounts which are actually…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…le. 15 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. In Kantilal Manilal v.CIT [1961] 41 ITR 275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section 2(22) certain amounts which are actually…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…le. 15 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. In Kantilal Manilal v.CIT [1961] 41 ITR 275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section 2(22) certain amounts which are actually…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…le. 15 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. In Kantilal Manilal v.CIT [1961] 41 ITR 275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section 2(22) certain amounts which are actually…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1882/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Indo Shell Automative Corporate Circle-1, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Coimbatore. A-9, Sidco Industrial Estate, Kurichi,Coimbatore-641 021. Pan: Aabci 3140D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Arjunraj, C.A for ""
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(va)

…ercial transaction thereby not attracting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.TAct. 1961. 4) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (a) In Kantilal Manilal Vs. CIT [1961] cited in 41 ITR 275 (SC), the Supreme Court held that section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of income-tax. (b) In Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT [1977] cited in 108 ITR 345 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under section 2(22) the liability to t…

ITO, Coimbatore vs. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Private Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri . Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 2(22)

…stood covered by Section 2(22) (e) of the Act. According to him, this was a deeming provision and had to be construed strictly. As per the ld. Assessing Officer, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 275 and Tarulata ITA Nos.1691 & 1973 /2015 :- 4 -: Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345, Section 2(22) (e) of the Act stood attracted on loans taken by a shareholder from a controlled company, to the extent such company possessed accumulated profits. Aggregate amount of "35,82,27,603/- received by the assessee from ISML during the period 19.01.2012…

Indoshell Automotive Systems India P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1691/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri . Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 2(22)

…stood covered by Section 2(22) (e) of the Act. According to him, this was a deeming provision and had to be construed strictly. As per the ld. Assessing Officer, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 275 and Tarulata ITA Nos.1691 & 1973 /2015 :- 4 -: Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345, Section 2(22) (e) of the Act stood attracted on loans taken by a shareholder from a controlled company, to the extent such company possessed accumulated profits. Aggregate amount of "35,82,27,603/- received by the assessee from ISML during the period 19.01.2012…

Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3751/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 24

…Officer and submitted that such a payment of interest has to be seen from the point of view of payment to a sister concern in the nature of advance for non-business purpose. He placed reliance upon the following decisions:- (1) Kantilal Manilal v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 275 (SC). (2) Shashibala Navnitlal vs. CIT, 54 ITR 478 (Guj.) 29. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Ajay Vohra, strongly relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that payment of interest cannot be reckoned as loan or advance and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by saying that it cann…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shri C. Kathirvel, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2656/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ation is held to be payment by the assessee company to the assessee and falls within the four corners of the deemed dividend as per the provisions of the Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanthilal Manilal Vs. CIT (41 ITR 275) held that “Dividend need not be distributed in money; it may be distributed by delivery of property or right having monetary value”. We reproduced the relevant extract of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra. Dividend need not be distributed in money; it may be distributed by delivery of property or right having monetary value. The resolution…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Smt. Bhagavathy Velan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2655/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2655/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Smt. Bhagavathy Velan, Tax, Corporate Circle-6(1), No.204/175, Flat No.21, Ayakar Bhavan, New Block, 121, 7th Choolaimedu High Road, Vs. Floor, M.G.Road, Chennai – 600 034 Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094. [PAN:AFNPB 2698 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Res…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Siegwerk India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…decisions as below:- Dividend in its ordinary meaning is a distribute share of the profits or income of the company given to its shareholders. By the definition in section 2(22), 'dividend' means dividend as normally understood - Kantilal Manilal v CIT (1961) 41 ITR 275 (SC). The word 'dividend' means dividend as ordinarily understood under the Companies Act and also the head of payment or distribution specified therein - Hari Prasad Jayantilal & Co. v V.S. Gupta, ITO (1966) 59 ITR 794 (SC) 'Dividend' in its ordinary connotation means the sum paid to or received by a shareholder proportionate to his shareholdin…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sindhu Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2766/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…oans are nothing but deemed dividend and is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and in this regard, he made reference to the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the AO, which are reproduced below :- (i) Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT – (1961) 41 ITR 275 (SC); (ii) Sadhana Textiles Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1991) 188 ITR 318 (Bom.); (iii) Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT – (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah – 160 Taxman 276 (SC) (v) Miss P. Sarada vs. CIT – 96 Taxman 11 (SC) (vi) Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT – 41 ITR 275 (SC) 8 ITA No.2766/Del./2012 (vii) CIT vs. P.K. Abubucker – 13…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd

ITA/462/2009HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…income which is to be taxed under head ―Income from Other Sources‖. She referred to the ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. Page 26 of 50 Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kantilal Manilal and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax 41 ITR 275 where the nature of this kind of income is explained in the following manner: ―…………….Dividend‖ is defined in section 2(6A) as inclusive of various items and exclusive of certain others which it is not necessary to set out for the purpose of this appeal. ―Dividend‖ in its ordinary meaning is a distributive share of the profits or i…

Kantilal Manilal v. CIT (41 ITR 275) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax