PCIT-3, Kolkata v. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd.

403 ITR 234High Court2018#10602 most cited

What is PCIT-3, Kolkata v. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. authority for?

Sums reflected in an assessee's books as a loan from a company are not deemed dividend in the assessee's hands if they are taxable in the hands of a common shareholder under section 2(22)(e). The revenue is not justified in treating such sums as deemed dividend in the assessee's hands.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Also referred to as

PCIT-3 · Kolkata v. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. · 403 ITR 234 · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loan from company · common shareholder · cash credits · income-tax act

Judgments citing PCIT-3, Kolkata v. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd.

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)

…DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid decisions, the A/R pleaded 13 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T…

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)

…DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid decisions, the A/R pleaded 13 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T…

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)

…DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid decisions, the A/R pleaded 13 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T…

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)

…DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India (P) Ltd 96 Taxmann.com 263]. The counsel has also referred to the decision of jurisdictional 16. Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. dated 08.05.2017 reported in 403 ITR 234 wherein it was held that Revenue was not justified in treating sums reflected in books of assessee as loan from a company as deemed dividend in assessee’s hands as same was to be taxed in hands of common shareholder as per section 2(22)(e). Based on the aforesaid decisions, the A/R pleaded 13 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…evelopers, Bangalore, ITA No. 157 of 2011 dated 03.11.2016 (Karn HC) (iv) Bangalore ITAT in case of M/s.Thirumala Venkateshwara Estates and Agencies, Bangalore in ITA No.553/Bang/2010 – Dated 28- 10- 2010. (v) CIT v. M/s. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Calcutta) (vi) CIT v. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs MLM Mahalingam Chettiar (1977) 107 ITR 236 (Mad) (viii) CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP) (ix) Income Tax officer v. Sitaram Chamaria (2006) 6 SOT 594 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2.28 The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…evelopers, Bangalore, ITA No. 157 of 2011 dated 03.11.2016 (Karn HC) (iv) Bangalore ITAT in case of M/s.Thirumala Venkateshwara Estates and Agencies, Bangalore in ITA No.553/Bang/2010 – Dated 28- 10- 2010. (v) CIT v. M/s. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Calcutta) (vi) CIT v. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs MLM Mahalingam Chettiar (1977) 107 ITR 236 (Mad) (viii) CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP) (ix) Income Tax officer v. Sitaram Chamaria (2006) 6 SOT 594 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2.28 The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…saction as an adventure in the nature of trade". (Page No. 156) I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 9.6 It was submitted that the case of the assessee was also covered by the recent decisions, as given below:- i. Principal CIT vs. Rungta Properties Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Cal.) It is held that the gain from transactions of sale of flats are not adventure in nature of trade, since no material has been brought to the notice that it had carried the business of property development. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs CIT case applied (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Surjeet Kaur ITA 383 of 200 (Cal.) Applied G. Ven…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…saction as an adventure in the nature of trade". (Page No. 156) I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 9.6 It was submitted that the case of the assessee was also covered by the recent decisions, as given below:- i. Principal CIT vs. Rungta Properties Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Cal.) It is held that the gain from transactions of sale of flats are not adventure in nature of trade, since no material has been brought to the notice that it had carried the business of property development. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs CIT case applied (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Surjeet Kaur ITA 383 of 200 (Cal.) Applied G. Ven…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…saction as an adventure in the nature of trade". (Page No. 156) I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 9.6 It was submitted that the case of the assessee was also covered by the recent decisions, as given below:- i. Principal CIT vs. Rungta Properties Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Cal.) It is held that the gain from transactions of sale of flats are not adventure in nature of trade, since no material has been brought to the notice that it had carried the business of property development. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs CIT case applied (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Surjeet Kaur ITA 383 of 200 (Cal.) Applied G. Ven…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 494/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…saction as an adventure in the nature of trade". (Page No. 156) I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 9.6 It was submitted that the case of the assessee was also covered by the recent decisions, as given below:- i. Principal CIT vs. Rungta Properties Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Cal.) It is held that the gain from transactions of sale of flats are not adventure in nature of trade, since no material has been brought to the notice that it had carried the business of property development. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs CIT case applied (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Surjeet Kaur ITA 383 of 200 (Cal.) Applied G. Ven…

PCIT-3, Kolkata v. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. (403 ITR 234) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax