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

Measage G. G Oils & Fats Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s G.G. Continental Trades Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. Bathinda. [PAN: -AAECG3090P] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No.513/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/s G.G. Oil & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Shop No.1, Aggarsain Nagar Bathinda. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. [PAN:-AADCG8857H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by S/Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, P.N. Arora, P.K. Singla, Advs…

Mesers G.G Contineental Trades Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s G.G. Continental Trades Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. Bathinda. [PAN: -AAECG3090P] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No.513/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/s G.G. Oil & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Shop No.1, Aggarsain Nagar Bathinda. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. [PAN:-AADCG8857H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by S/Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, P.N. Arora, P.K. Singla, Advs…

DCIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi vs. Commcorp Internatioanl LLP, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4158/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri V.K Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT, Circle 36(1), New M/s Comcorp International LLP, Plot No. 09, 1st floor, Gujranwalan Town, Delhi Delhi vs. 110009 PAN AAHFC 7491 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri V.K Bindal, CA Ms Rinky Sharma, CA For Revenue : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A)-12 New Delhi dated 19.01.2018 for…

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Forum Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Section 14ASection 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 24Section 250

…t be considered from the benefit angle as envisaged under section 2(22)(e), it is observed that the judicial pronouncements cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee clearly support the case of the assessee. 6. In the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra reported in 338 ITR 538 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, it was held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that the phrase "by way of advance or loan" appearing in section 2(22)(e) must be construed to mean those advances or loans, which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of being a partner, who is the beneficial owner of shares, but if such loan or advan…

Shri Ashok Kumar Narula, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA nos

ITA 9/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 4.2. The ld. AR placed that the issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR in argument respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pardip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (CAL). The relevant paragraphs are extracted as below: - “10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion 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 f…

Shri Ashok Kumar Narula, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA nos

ITA 8/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 4.2. The ld. AR placed that the issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR in argument respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pardip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (CAL). The relevant paragraphs are extracted as below: - “10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion 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 f…

Shri Ravi Narula, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA nos

ITA 11/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 4.2. The ld. AR placed that the issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR in argument respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pardip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (CAL). The relevant paragraphs are extracted as below: - “10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion 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 f…

Shri Ravi Narula, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA nos

ITA 10/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 4.2. The ld. AR placed that the issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR in argument respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pardip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (CAL). The relevant paragraphs are extracted as below: - “10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion 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 f…

International Management Technologies, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi

Accordingly set aside. The appeal however, is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1298/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1298/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. International Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Management Income Tax, Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(2), 1St Floor, Vijaya Building, New Delhi 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaaci8587M Assessee By Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…had moved an application available at page No. 11-12 of the paper book, in which it was explained that the assessee contests this proposed addition relying on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malthotra Vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal) wherein, it was held that non gratuitous loan cannot be covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act to treat the loan as deemed dividend. However, the ld AO did not take the submission date 26.12.2017 on record and passed the impugned assessment order on the same date. In this context certain other judicial pronouncements were relied before the Bench f…

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pci Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross objections of the assessee in CO No

ITA 5154/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5154/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T. Vs. M/s PCI Limited Circle – 19(2) 19, Rajendra Park New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACP 1565 E CO No. 174/DEL/2018 (A/o ITA No. 5154/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15]) M/s PCI Limited Vs. The A.C.I.T. 19, Rajendra Park Circle – 19(2) New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACP 1565 E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish Agarwal, CA Shri Dharender Kumar, CA Shri Rachit Agarwal, CA Department By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr…

Bineeta Singh, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3373/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Bineeta Singh, The Acit Circle 5(1), Flat No. 126, Aspen Greens, New Delhi Nirwana Country, Gurgaon, Vs. Haryana 122003 Pan Aqeps3259D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate
Section 147Section 2(22)Section 250

…o non gratuitous advance to substantial share holder for this proposition the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Ms. Bineeta Singh Kumar Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 338 ITR 538. ii) placing reliance on the judgment of the ITAT Delhi Bench in ITA no. 1268/Del/2018 in the case of Archana Sharma vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad, it was also contended that the classes of shareholder specified therein would come within the purview of section 2(22)(e) but not in the cases were loan and advances has been given in return to an advantage con…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Dulichand Champalal Textile

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

ITAT/253/2022HC Calcutta09 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dhudheria, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv., Adv. ..For Respondent

Section 2(22)(e)Section 260ASection 68

…year under consideration. Therefore, the learned Tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal. With regard to the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act the learned Tribunal had followed the decision of this Court in Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT ; 2011 338 ITR 538 (Cal), as well as the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Creative Dying & Printing (P) Ltd. ; [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue affirming the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus we find that there is no substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, t…

Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम BengalShrachi ACIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata HousingDevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/s. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. PAN: AABCB2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Amitava Bose, Ld.AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Biswanath Das,CIT, Ld.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 28-11-2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/ 02-01-2023 Date of Pronoun…

Shri Parag Prakash Doshi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Parag Prakash Doshi Pcit-2, 203-A, Shripal Nagar Co-Op. Ahmedabad Hsg. Soc., Nepean Sea Road, Vs Mumbai-400006 [Pan No. : Ahnpd2646P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…losses. The assessee has also filed balance-sheet of the company for the year under consideration which shows trade payable. In support of its contention, assessee cited a judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court titled as Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal.), wherein it has been held as under:- “The assessee had substantial shareholding in a private company. The assessee permitted his immovable property to be mortgaged to the bank for enabling the company to take the benefit of loan and in spite of request of the assessee the company was unable to release the property from mortgage. Consequen…

ACIT Central Cir. 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Ajay Virendra Arora, Mumbai

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

ITA 2149/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ajay Virendra Acit-Cen.Circle – 6(4), Arora, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 6Th Floor, S14, Solitaire India Building, Nariman बिधम/ Corporate Park, Guru Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Addpa6742R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Mishra, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Jain/ Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.08.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Mishra, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain/ Shri
Section 153ASection 19Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ra company has benefitted hugely from such advances, then it cannot be treated as company has given advances or loans to the benefit of the shareholders or to its detriment. 11. The Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra reported in 338 ITR 538 has held that the phrase “by way of advance or loan” appearing in section 2(22)(e) must be construed to mean those advances or loans, which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of being a partner, who is the beneficial owner of shares, but if such loan or advance is given to such shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration, wh…

Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9595/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4446/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(3), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.2406/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(4), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.6440/DEL/2019 Assessment Yea…

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6440/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4446/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(3), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.2406/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(4), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.6440/DEL/2019 Assessment Yea…

Jayson Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(4), New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4446/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(3), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.2406/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(4), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.6440/DEL/2019 Assessment Yea…

M/S. Jayson Industries, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4446/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4446/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(3), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.2406/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s. Jayson Industries, vs. Income Tax Officer, 389, Old Post Office Street, Ward-63(4), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFJ2205N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.6440/DEL/2019 Assessment Yea…

Archana Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1268/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraarchana Sharma Vs. Dcit Ii F/130, Nehru Nagar, Circle – 1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan No. Ayups 6374 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Shri Pushkar Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Ghaziabad Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

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

…wer. (c) A concern (other than company) in which such shareholder has at least 20% of interest. (3) The payment of loan or advance is not in the course of ordinary business activity. 14. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra (2011) 338 ITR 538, while dealing with clause (e) of 9 section 2(22) of the Act has held that if loan or advance is given to a shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration which is beneficial to the company received from such a shareholder, in such case, such advance or loan cannot be said to a deemed dividend within the meaning of the Act. The relevan…