M/s M.B. Stock Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

84 ITD 542Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#16166 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profits compulsory acquisition section 2(22)deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)income from other sources previous year transfer person company india business

Judgments citing M/s M.B. Stock Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

Sms Tolls and Developers, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…xtent of ` 4,79,825. His only contention is that the accumulated profit must exclude the proration of current year’s business profit. To buttress his proposition, he has relied on the following two case laws:– i) M.B. Stock Holding Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2004] 84 ITD 542 (Ahd.); and ii) Ramesh Premji Shah v/s DCIT, ITA no.1985/Mum./2022, A.Y. 2012–13, order dated 09/01/2023. 8. We also find that similar issue was considered by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Ramesh Premji Shah (supra) in favour of the assessee. It is deemed fit to reproduce Para–6 to 18 of the said order:– “6. We have hear…

Ramesh Premji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1985/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

For Appellant: Shri Subhas BainsFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 71

…orce, include any profits of the company prior to three successive previous years immediately preceding the previous year in which such acquisition took place”. 12. The Ahmedabad bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s M.B. Stock Holdings (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (2003) 84 ITD 542] took note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Asokbhai Chimanbhai (1965)(56 ITR 42) wherein it was held that the profits do not accrue from day to day or even from month to month and have to be ascertained by a comparison of assets at two stated points. It was further held that unless the right to profits comes into exist…

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

…upra, since he was of the view that the Tribunal did not consider the definition of “accumulated Profits”, as given in Explanation 2 to sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, the Ahmedabad bench of Tribunal in the case of M.B.Stock Holding (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT (2003)(84 ITD 542) has held that the accumulated profits are to be worked out up to the date of each payment/advancement of loan and further the profits of business accrue only at the end of the previous year. (d) The tax authorities have failed to take into consideration the amount of dividend actually declared by the assessee during the year relevant to the asse…

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)

…ould include current year’s profit also. The Ld A.R submitted that the Visakhapatnam bench of Tribunal in the case of P Satya Prasad (supra) has followed the decision rendered by Ahmedabad Special bench decision in the case of M B Stock Holding (P) Ltd (2003)(84 ITD 542)(Ahd.), wherein it was held that the accumulated profits do not include current year’s business profit. The Special bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965)(56 ITR 42), wherein it has been held that the profits of business do not accrue from day-to-day or even from month to month…

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)

…or advance treated as deemed income up to the date of fresh loan is to be reduced from the accumulated profits. Consistent with the view taken by the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ITA No.462/Mds/2013. :- 17 -: M.B.Stock Holding Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT in (2003) 84 ITD 542(Ahd.), we also hold so. The contention of the assessee is that the amount of deemed dividend, which should have been assessed 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…

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)

…ce of reserves and surplus. Meaning thereby, the current year’s profit should not be added to determine the addition u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. We find support from the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M.B. Stock Holding (P) Ltd Vs ACIT 84 ITD 542 wherein it has been held that “ Dividend—Deemed dividend under s.2(22)(e)— Accumulated profits—For the purpose of s. 2(22)(e), the accumulated profits are to be worked out upto the date of each payment/advancement of the loan—There is a distinction between the "accumulated profits" of business and the current year's profits of business—Explanation…