Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

338 ITR 538High Court2011#656 most cited

What is Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT authority for?

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

151

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loans and advances to shareholders · gratuitous loans · business expediency · commercial transactions · normal course of business · current account transactions · advance for company benefit

Also reported as

15 Taxmann.com 66

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68Section 10Section 10(2A)Section 115JB

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profitssection 142adeemed dividendsection 2(22)section 2(22)(e)section 150surrender of incomemat creditbeneficial ownersection 158bdbusiness expediencysection 80ic

Judgments citing Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

INTERNATIONAL CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…(P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2009) 120 TTJ 0142 (Jaipur Tribunal) (b) Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. ITO (2002) 121 Taxman 367 (c) M D Jindal Vs. CIT (1987) 164 ITR 28 (Cal) (d) CIT vs. K. Srinivasan (1963) 50 ITR 788 (Mad) (e) Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal) (f) M/s. Mirik Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT, Kolkata) (g) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P) Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (Del) 250 (h) CIT vs. Madurai Chettiyar Karthikeyan (2014) 89 CCH 145 (Chennai HC). 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the findings and observations made by AO and CIT(A) and requested to up…

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3107/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhat
Section 2(22)(e)

…the prescribed tenure. Thus, the prescribed tenure. Thus, reliance on the so-called policy is misplaced. called policy is misplaced. 7.3 The assessee further relied on The assessee further relied on Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT [338 ITR 538 (Cal)], where the Hon’ble High Court held that [338 ITR 538 (Cal)], where the Hon’ble High Court held that [338 ITR 538 (Cal)], where the Hon’ble High Court held that advances made in consideration of a benefit to the company do not advances made in consideration of a benefit to the comp advances made in consideration of a benefit to the comp fal…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर 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 04.10.20…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI, AGRA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 137/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ers would come within the purview of section 2(22). However, the loan or advance given in return for an advantage conferred upon the company by such a shareholder could not be categorized as deemed dividend. 7.9 In case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal.), the Hon'ble Kolkatta High Court held that the phrase "by way of advance or loan" appearing in sub-clause (e) must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a share holder enjoys for simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or with…

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 446/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…ITR 730 (Cal)] 2. CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada [367 ITR 78 (P&H)) 3. Gadgil Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 1455/PUNE/2017] 4. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [168 ITD 649 (Del)] 5. Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT [167 ITD 100 (Mum)] Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT [338 ITR 538 (Cal)/[ratio applicablel 6. 20. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 21. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions ci…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. MS SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATOTRIES AND EDUCATION LTD., , CHANDIGARH

ITA 93/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…d that it has been held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions should be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon the following case laws: a. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 857/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 856/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 845/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 844/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\n\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 843/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 833/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 832/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 829/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 732/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 731/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 730/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 729/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 728/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…at it has\nbeen held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 727/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…d that it has been held time and again that money transferred to give effect to commercial transactions should be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon the following case laws: a. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has…

Showing 1–20 of 151 · Page 1 of 8

...