Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen

Taurian Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

…Hotels Ltd. Vs. C.R Shekhar Reddy & Anr. (230 ITR 622)(Kar) (xvi). UCO Bank Ltd. VS. CIT (237 ITR 889)(SC). (xvii).Anjuman M.I1 Ghaswala (252 ITR 1)(SC) (xviii). K.P Varghese (131 ITR 597)(SC) (xix). Dhiren Chemicals (254 ITR 554) (xx). Navnitlal C. Jhaveri (56 ITR 198 at 203)(SC) (xxi). Ellerman Lines Ltd. Vs. CIT (82 ITR 913, at 920-21)(SC) , and thus submitted that as the A.O had erred in not following the CBDT Circular No. 5 (supra), therefore his action may be vacated. 8. The Ld. A.R further referring to another CBDT Circular No. 9; Pt. 19.11. 2013, wherein the anomaly as had crept in Para 45.5 of the Circu…

ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Brijesh V Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of Cross Objection is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. No. 834/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai Appellant Vs. Shri Brijesh V. Shah Respondent C-33, Jamuna CHS Ltd. Same Guruji Navgar, Navgar Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai - 81 CO No. 78/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Brijesh V. Shah Appellant C-33, Jamuna CHS Ltd. Same Guruji Navgar, Navgar Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai - 81 Vs. ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai Respondent PAN: AVQPS 4520C अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /By Appellant : Shri S.M. Ba…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

…merged company).’ We may next set out the law in the matter as explained and laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to some of it’s decisions, which are locus classicus on the subject, as follows: In Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K. K. Sen, AACIT [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC), where the challenge was to the vires of the provision of section 12(1B) r/w s. 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter ‘the 1922 Act’), the Hon’ble Court per it’s constitutional bench upheld the constitutionality thereof, also finding the same as not violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of t…

Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale, Thane vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5410/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" Shri Chandrasekhar Maruti Vs. Acit-10(2), Mumbai- Musale Flat No.1203/1204, 400020 12Th Floor, Carlyle Raheja Garden, Lbs Marg, Off. Tip Top Thane, Mumbai-400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm 3914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Chetan A. Karia राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. S.Pandian सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 21-5-2012. 2. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated The Addition Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) At The Hands Of The Assessee On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property & Other Sources. The Assessee Was Having Major Shareholding In 3 Companies Namely; (I) M/S.Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. (Ii) M/ S. Advance Scientific Equipment P.Ltd. & (Iii) M/S. Star Earth Minerals P.Ltd. During Assessment Proceedings, From The Replies Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Noticed That M/S. Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. Had Advanced An Amount Of Rs.31,00,000/- On 16.12.2008 To M/S. Advance Scientific Equipment P. Ltd. & M/S.

…s or out of business expediency or in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by such shareholder. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K. K. Sen”, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) while analyzing the relevant provisions of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Act of 1922, has observed that three kinds of payments made to the shareholder of a company to which the said provisions apply, are treated as taxable dividend to the extent of the accumulated profits held by the company. These three kinds of payments are: (i) payments made…