Mahimananda Mishra v. ACIT

343 ITR 350High Court2012#8616 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also reported as

147 Taxmann.com 521

Sections most often in play

Section 14Section 2(22)(e)Section 37Section 4Section 5Section 56Section 56(1)Section 8

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)beneficial ownerliable to taxescapement of incomesection 142(1)previous yearcompanybusinessperson

Judgments citing Mahimananda Mishra v. ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. YELLOW SAPPHIRE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3467/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 212Section 56Section 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 3467/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Yellow Sapphire International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi-110055 A-7, Upasana Apartment, 1 Hailey Road, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACY6066B Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 31.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, 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)

…jay Tea Ltd., and, therefore, addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is uncalled for in the hands of the assessee. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, 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)

…jay Tea Ltd., and, therefore, addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is uncalled for in the hands of the assessee. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, 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)

…jay Tea Ltd., and, therefore, addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is uncalled for in the hands of the assessee. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India…

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, 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)

…jay Tea Ltd., and, therefore, addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is uncalled for in the hands of the assessee. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions:-  Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT [147 Taxmann.com 521]  CIT Vs MCC Marketing Pvt Ltd [ 343 ITR 350 (Del- HC)]  CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC)  CIT VS Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. [ 203 Taxman 618 (Del-HC)  CIT VS Ankitech Pvt Ltd. [340 ITR 14 (Del-HC)]  CIT Vs Narmina Trade Investments Pvt Ltd [2017] 81 Tacmxnn.com 129  CIT VS Hotel Hiltop [ 313 ITR 116 (Raj-HC)]  DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India…

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK (Through virtual hearing) BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AABCO 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA S.K.Sarangi, CA Revenue by…

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)

…pondent-assessee invited our attention to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited, [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. MCC Marketing Private Limited, [2012] 343 ITR 350 (Delhi) and in C.I.T. vs. Ankitech P. Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) to contend that since the respondent-assessee was and is not a shareholder of M/s.Ittina from which it has received monies, which are in the nature of loan or advances, are not covered by the definition of the word "dividend" as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 9. Ther…

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)

…pondent-assessee invited our attention to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited, [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. MCC Marketing Private Limited, [2012] 343 ITR 350 (Delhi) and in C.I.T. vs. Ankitech P. Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) to contend that since the respondent-assessee was and is not a shareholder of M/s.Ittina from which it has received monies, which are in the nature of loan or advances, are not covered by the definition of the word "dividend" as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 9. Ther…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI vs. CLARIDGE HOTELS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4874/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, 12, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-1100011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0022B

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 145(3)

…r of the company from which he received a loan or an advance cannot be treated as covered by the definition of the word 'dividend' as contained in section 2(22)(e). b. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCC Marketing Pvt. Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 350 wherein the judgment of Ankiteqh (supra) has been followed and affirmed. c. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bikaner Cuisine (P.) Ltd. reported in 45 taxmann.com 253. d. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Navyug Promoters (P.) Ltd. reported in 16 taxmann.com 292. 14 Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd. e. Judgment…

M/S. SPRY HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4865/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics3968A Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICS3968A Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020 ORDER Per Amit Shukla , Judicial Member:…

M/S. SPRY HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4864/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics3968A Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 4864/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 4865/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Spry Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 11/C, W-3 Lane, Western Avenue, Circle-9(1), Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICS3968A Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2020 ORDER Per Amit Shukla , Judicial Member:…

SHRI MEHUL PRATAP ASNANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 693/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 693/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Mehul Pratap Asnani Vs. Dcit 4, Garden Enclave, Circle-1, Opp. Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan:Acm Pa6 996 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…ictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Daisy Packers Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Appeal No. 212 of 2010. Almost, a large number of Hon’ble High Courts are unanimous on this issue viz. CIT vs. Universal Medicare P. Ltd. 324 ITR 263 and CIT vs. MCC Marketing P. Ltd., 343 ITR 350. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCCIT-III vs. Sarva Equity P. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Daisy Packers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted SLP against the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court, but the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANMATI ARCADE PVT L

RP/322/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 260Section 4

…-assessee invited our attention to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited, [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom.), the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. MCC Marketing Private Limited, [2012] 343 ITR 350 (Delhi) and in C.I.T. vs. Ankitech P. Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) to contend that since the respondent-assessee was and is not a shareholder of M/s.Ittina from which it has received monies, which are in the nature of loan or advances, are not covered by the definition of the word “dividend” as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.…

Mahimananda Mishra v. ACIT (343 ITR 350) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax