Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

338 ITR 538High Court2011#651 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.

152

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 726/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 153A

…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…

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 583/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
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…

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 582/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
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…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

ITA 506/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
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…

DCIT, CC 1, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 153DSection 2

…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…

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
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…

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2, Nagpur vs. Shri Rohan Jagdale, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 85/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…of assessee for the impugned assessment year 2014-2015 by following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G Narasimhan reported in 236 ITR 327 (SC); the decision of Kolkata High Court in the case of Shri Pradipkumar Malhotra reported in 338 ITR 538 (Cal.) and the decision of ITAT, Nagpur Bench in ITA.No.305/NAG./2016 vide order dated 10.10.2016 in the case of Shri Damodar Sarda. 4.1. Similarly, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.3,36,000/- on account of rental income by 4 ITA.No.85/NAG./2020 observing that it is the settled position of law that there is no scope for assessi…

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

…ng upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT” reported in [2009] 28 SOT 383 (Bom) and also on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of “Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT” 338 ITR 538(Cal), has held that where the loan transactions are in the normal course of business and out of business expediency and are representing current account transaction, in such type of transactions, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) would not be attracted. The relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Shree…

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

…ng upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT" reported in [2009] 28 SOT 383 (Bom) and also on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of “Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT” 338 ITR 538(Cal), has held that where the loan transactions are in the normal course of business and out of business expediency and are representing current account transaction, in such type of transactions, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) would not be attracted. The relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Shree…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7.1, Kolkata vs. Ms. Soyuz Trading Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 336/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Vs. Ms. Soyuz Trading Company Ltd. (PAN: AAGCS 3371 K) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 30.12.2024 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 17.01.2025 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the assessee / Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से For the reve…

Subhash Chander Oberoi, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax - 26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsubhash Chander Oberoi, Saidham Building, Dr. Jawkar Lane, Sion Chunabhatti Road, Mumbai - 400022 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Aadpo9185B V/S Acit, 26(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…nature ITA No.1667-Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) 10 of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word “advance” in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Pradip Kumar Malhotra v/s CIT, reported in [2011] 338 ITR 538 (Cal.) held that gratuitous loan or advance given by the company to its shareholders would come within the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act but not the cases where the loan or advance is given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by such shareholder. In the present case, as noted in the foregoing paragraph, upon receipt of a…

Hareendran Nair Janardhanan Nair, Trivandrum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

ITA 810/COCH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Arti, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

…sel’s only case is that the assessee and the said company had been having a current running account containing various contra entries and therefore, case law(s) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) & Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal); already goes against the department on the very issue as such sum(s) could not be terms as either loans or advances; as the case may be. 6. The Revenue on the other hand has chosen to place strong reliance on the impugned addition made in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the instant…

Hareendran Nair Janardhanan Nair, Trivandrum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram, Trivandrum

ITA 809/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Arti, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

…sel’s only case is that the assessee and the said company had been having a current running account containing various contra entries and therefore, case law(s) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) & Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal); already goes against the department on the very issue as such sum(s) could not be terms as either loans or advances; as the case may be. 6. The Revenue on the other hand has chosen to place strong reliance on the impugned addition made in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the instant…

Hareendran Nair Janardhanan Nair, Trivandrum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thiruvanathapuram

ITA 808/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Arti, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

…sel’s only case is that the assessee and the said company had been having a current running account containing various contra entries and therefore, case law(s) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) & Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal); already goes against the department on the very issue as such sum(s) could not be terms as either loans or advances; as the case may be. 6. The Revenue on the other hand has chosen to place strong reliance on the impugned addition made in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the instant…

Purnendu Roy, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…Care Pvt. Ltd. and these transactions are for commercial expediency and are not in the nature of loans and advances. Reliance placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT (2011) 15 taxmann.com 66/203 Taxman 10/338 ITR 538 (Cal) and the decision of co-ordinate bench Amritsar in the case of G.G. Continental Trades Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 106 ITR (T) 356, ld. AR also referred to the CBDT Circular no. 19 dated 12th June, 2017. 06. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of the lower authorities. 07. We have heard…

Shreekant Ray, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Bhandary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shreekant Ray, ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata, C/o Subash Agarwal & Bamboo Villa, 169, Associates, A.J.C. Bose Road, Advocates Siddha Gibson, Vs Kolkata - 700014 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 (PAN: AGOPR8766J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Nitish Bhandary, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHR…

Ambey Capital Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2195/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usambey Capital Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-2, Ambey House, 34/1, East Circle-2(2), Punjabi Bagh, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabct6631J

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ok. This also makes the transactions outside the ambit of applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT reported in 338 ITR 538 (Cal), wherein, it was held that expression “by way of advance or loan” which a shareholder enjoys simply on account of being a person who is beneficial owner of shareholding not less than 10% of voting power, but if such loan or advance is given to such shareholder as Ambey Capital Pvt. Ltd a consequence of any further consideration which is be…

DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai vs. M/S. Susee Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 832/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ed shareholder nor beneficial owner and hence, deemed dividend cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. This view is also affirmed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip ITA Nos.784 & 832Chny/2020 :- 8 -: Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT [2011] 338 ITR 538 (Cal.), wherein it is held as under: "4. We have heard rìval submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the facts of the case and found from the perusal of ledger account of assessee in the books of account of Ganesh Wheat Products (P) Ltd., the lender Company, it is seen that as on the first day of t…

M/S Susee Automotive (P) Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -2, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 784/CHNY/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ed shareholder nor beneficial owner and hence, deemed dividend cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. This view is also affirmed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip ITA Nos.784 & 832Chny/2020 :- 8 -: Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT [2011] 338 ITR 538 (Cal.), wherein it is held as under: "4. We have heard rìval submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the facts of the case and found from the perusal of ledger account of assessee in the books of account of Ganesh Wheat Products (P) Ltd., the lender Company, it is seen that as on the first day of t…