How many judgments cite P.K. Badiani v. CIT?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite P.K. Badiani v. CIT (105 ITR 642), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does P.K. Badiani v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 2(22)(e), Section 44AB.

P.K. Badiani v. CIT

105 ITR 642Supreme Court of India1976#4278 most cited

What is P.K. Badiani v. CIT authority for?

A prior decision of the Bombay High Court, confirmed by the Supreme Court in P.K. Badiani v. CIT (105 ITR 642), is applicable to the facts of a subsequent case, even if it involves different assessment procedures. This establishes the precedent value of a Supreme Court judgment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

P.K. Badiani v. CIT · 105 ITR 642 · Supreme Court · Bombay High Court · applicability of prior judgment · assessment procedure · section 139 · section 143(2) · section 142(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 80e section 75 section 32(2)convertible foreign exchange section 80ab section 32a section 80m actual payment basis clarificatory amendment accumulated profits section 80h section 2(22)

Judgments citing P.K. Badiani v. CIT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. AVINASH KNATILAL JAIN, JALGAON

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

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

…er on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K. Badani 76 ITR 369, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide 105 ITR 642 is applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. 04. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete and amend any of the grounds, as per the circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is proprietor of Jain Solar Agency and also engaged in the business of manufacturin…

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)

…n 2 to Section 2(22) provides that the expression accumulated profits'shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment of liquidation. These would include development rebate & investment allowance reserve. P.K. Badiani vs CIT 105 ITR 642 (SC). It will even include income which is exempt from tax. Tea Estate v CIT 103 ITR 785 (SC) The Revenue also relies upon the order of THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI, in ITA No.4573/Mum/ 2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta 3rd Floor, Atul Baug Near Saraswat Co-operative Bank Syndicate, Kalyan (West) PAN…

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

…2 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 Page 20 of 39 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries (supra) which read as under :- “ JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted. Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpre…

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

…v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries (supra) which read as under :- “JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted. Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpret…

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

…v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 Page 18 of 39 ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore 115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries (supra) which read as under :- “ JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave…

XL ENTERPRISES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2105/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)

…d after considering depreciation under the Income Tax Act and not under the Companies Act, 1956 ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in not applying the ratio of the Judgment in the case of CIT v. P.K. Badiani [1976] 105 ITR 642 (SC), holding that accumulated profits means profits in the commercial sense and not assessible or taxable profit liable to be taxed as income under Income Tax Act ?" 2. Smt. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that the learned CIT Appeals as well as the learned Tribunal have failed to take into consideration that while c…

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

…om accumulated profits all “disbursements legitimately attributable to it by way of expenses, development, dividends and deemed dividends” must be reduced. And she relied upon the following case laws: - Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Badiani vs CIT 105 ITR 642 (SC) has held that the term profits appearing in Section 2(6a)(e) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which corresponds to Section 2(22)(e) of the 1961 Act, means profits in the commercial sense, i.e. profits made by 9 A.Y. 2012-13 Ramesh Premji Shah the company in the usual and true sense of the term. It has also been held that development rebate res…

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…upreme court are satisfied in the present case 18.5 The Supreme Court in Supreme court are satisfied in the present case 18.5 The Supreme Court in Supreme court are satisfied in the present case 18.5 The Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Badiani v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 642 has held that the term the case of P.K. Badiani v. CIT [1976] 5 ITR 642 has held that the term 'profits' appearing in section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income 'profits' appearing in section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, 'profits' appearing in section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income which corresponds to section 2(22)(e) of the 1961 Act,…

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. BHAGWATI COAL MOVERS (P) LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3394/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Gupta, CA

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56

…ppeals) that the amount of Rs. 1,85,821 alone out of the amount of Rs. 25,42,772 could be assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was thus affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has referred to the following judgments: • P.K. Badiani v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 642 (SC) ), The term "accumulated profits" should be construed in the commercial sense and not assessable or taxable profits liable to tax under 1922 Act. Development rebate debited to profit and loss account and taken to reserve would amount to accumulated profits. • CIT v. Urmila Ramesh [1998] 230 ITR 422 ITO held that the amount distributed on li…

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

…ear’s profit. 12. The contentions of the Ld D.R can be summarized as under:- (a) The decision rendered by the Cochin bench in the case of Gordhandas Khimji, supra is not in accordance with the scheme of the Act. (b) In the case of P.K.Badani Vs. CIT (1976)(105 ITR 642), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the “Accumulated Profits” means profits in the commercial sense and not assessable or taxable profits liable to tax as income under the Act. (c) Hence the assessee is wrong in contending that the deemed dividend, which was not assessed earlier, is required to be deducted from the accumulated profits. In…

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)

…asthan High Court. 15. The Special bench in the case of M B Stock Holding (P) Ltd (supra) has addressed the issue of interpretation of “current year’s profit” as under:- “Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.K. Budiani (1976) 105 ITR 642 (SC) held that Section 2(6A)(e) of 1922 Act [corresponding to Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961) must be so interpreted that once an amount goes not of the accumulated profits as a loan and the loan is deemed to be dividend, the same amount when repaid cannot again be capable of attracting the fiction and be deemed to be dividend. To avoid the…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SHRI GAJ SINGH, JODHPUR

ITA 85/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.85/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.86/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.141/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit–Circle-1 Shri Gaj Singh बनाम/ Jodhpur Umaid Bhawan Palace Vs. Rajasthan. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afmps-5233-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 4. C.O. No.08/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.85/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. C.O. No.09/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.86/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 6. C.O. No.13/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.141/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Gaj Singh Acit–Circle-1 बनाम/ Umaid Bhawan Palace Jodhpur Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afmps-5233-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pandey and Ms. Dakshayani Pandey (CA)- LdFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 28

…d dividend u/s 2(22)(e), it was contended that advance of Rs.36.50 Lacs as made by M/s MHPL was towards security deposit and keeping in view the business expediency. The Ld. CIT(A), in the background of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Badani V/s CIT 105 ITR 642, observed that M/s MHPL incurred losses of Rs.202.99 Lacs during the year and therefore, the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) would not apply. Further, the deposit given to the assessee on account of guarantee given on behalf of the company exceeded the advance which has business nexus and therefore, there would be no deemed dividend. Aggrieved, the re…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SHRI GAJ SINGH, JODHPUR

ITA 141/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pandey and Ms. Dakshayani Pandey (CA)- LdFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 28

ASHWANI KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kapoor, Vs. Ito, A-44, Kailash Colony, Ward-3(2), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aigpk9963L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Ashwani Kapoor, Circle-6(1), A-44, Kailash Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aigpk9963L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rc Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 09/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri K Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri RC Pandey, Sr. DR

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

…it of deemed dividend. 5. The ld Departmental Representative vehemently contested the claim of the assessee and supported the orders of the lower authorities. He specifically referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PK Badiyani Vs. CIT 105 ITR 642 and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sunil Chopra 242 CTR 498 (Delhi). 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The brief facts in the present case are that assessee is a director with 36.30 % shareholding in the company M/s competent Holdings private limited. Both the as…

D. P. VORA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5961/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal and Shri Jitendra Singh

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.5961/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) D P Vora Securities Pvt Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income 21/22/B, 1st floor, Tax-4(1)(1), बनाम/ Khatau Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. A D Mody Marg, Fort, M K Road, Mumbai-400023 Mumbai-400020. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AACCD1947L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K Gopal and Shri Jitendra Singh प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Purushottam…

LATE RAMESH CHAND GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(4), Late Ramesh Chand Goyal Through L/H Smt. Manorma New Delhi Goyal, A-15/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aagpg7119L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.L. Dua, Adv. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…commercial profits -Amount of Rs. 1,85,821/- alone out of the amount of Rs.25,42,772/- can be assessed as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e)." The above view has been taken particularly following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P.K. Badiani V CIT, 105 ITR 642. 14 AY:2009-10 In that decision it was clearly observed that accumulated profits would mean profit in the commercial sense and not assessable taxable profits. In that case development rebate reserve created by the company by charging profit and loss account was held to be accumulated profits though the same was liable to be deducted as rebate. Fo…

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Precy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita Menon, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

…proposition that every receipt by the shareholder is not a „dividend‟. The expression “accumulated profits” appearing in the above clause-(a) to section 2(22) of the Act is required to be understood in a sense of „commercial profits‟, PK Badiani v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 642 (SC). It is also a settled proposition in law that the expression „release of capital assets‟ is not attracted in factual matrix where certain bogus shares are issued without any consideration by the company to the shareholders [CIT vs. Dalmia Investment Company Limited [52 ITR 567 (SC)]. It implies transfer of shares of a company ipso facto does…

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)

…rs - CIT v Nalin Behari Lall Singha (1969) 74 ITR 849 (SC). The word 'profits' occurring in section 2(22) means profits in the commercial sense, that is to say the profits made by the company in the real and true sense of the term - P.K. Badiani v CIT (1976) 105 ITR 642 (SC) From a plain reading of Section 2(22)(e) it is seen that the payments made by the appellant to the three group concerns does not fall within the definition of dividend. One of the basic conditions of Sec. 2(22)(e) is that the payment by a company should be by way of advance of loan. The payments made by the appellant to M/s Siegwerk Benelux…

GIRISH APPA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1637/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 32

…t". It is our humble opinion that it is on this Revenue Element that we should apply the provisions of Section 2(22) (e) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 to test the applicability of Deemed Dividend Provisions. Reference is also made to P.K. Badiani v/s CIT (1976) 105 ITR 642 (SC) We wish to reproduce the relevant portion of the citation in P K Badiani case where it is stated that “ …. when arriving at the profits for that period the amount of depreciation has to be deducted, because the amount of the value lost by depreciation is a capital loss which must be replaced first as otherwise the initial capital would, to t…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. VASANJI A MAMANIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objection filed by the assesee become otiose

ITA 6171/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.6171/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम/ The Acit-19(3), Vasanji A Mamania, Mumbai 301, Mangal Swagat, Vs. Of Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 C.O. No. 134/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No.6171/Mum/2012) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम/ Vasanji A Mamania, The Acit-19(3), 301, Mangal Swagat, Mumbai Vs. Of Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aampm 4503C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri Shridhar E ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :23.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assesee Are Directed Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 30, Mumbai Dated 6.7.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 Ita. No. 6171/M/12 & C.O No. 134/M/14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shridhar E

Section 2(22)(e)

…n to Rs. 13,71,908/- as against to Rs. 23,25,000/- made u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Revenue is further aggrieved by the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Badiani Vs CIT 105 ITR 642. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assesee is a resident individual. While scrutinizing the return of income, the Assessing Officer found that the assesee has received loan amounting to Rs. 23,75,000/- from Adlabs Shringar Multiplex Cinemas Pvt. Ltd (ASMCPL). The AO further came to know that the assessee is substantially intere…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2