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.

How many judgments cite Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT?

152 judgments on BharatTax cite Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT (338 ITR 538), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(22)(e), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 10.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT (338 ITR 538)

Smt Jamuna Vernekar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

ITA/43/2013HC Karnataka10 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260

…09) 318 ITR 476 (DELHI), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. 7 AMBASSADOR TRAVELS P. LTD.' (2009) 318 ITR 376 (DELHI), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. RAJ KUMAR' (2009) 318 ITR 462 (DELHI), 'PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX' (2011) 338 ITR 538 (CAL), 'PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. VIKAS OBEROI' (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 261 (SC), 'BAGMANE CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE' (2015) 57 TAXMANN.COM 120 (KAR), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. C.R.DASS' (2012) 17 TAXMANN.COM 76 (DELHI), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA-1 Vs. GAYATRI…

M/S Budhia Agencies Pvt Ltd, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 61/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम M/S Budhia Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi / Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S V/S. O.P. Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001. Pan No.Aabcb8716G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

…Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 coming from its group concerns by way of a running account does not attract deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Case law 2019-TIOL-1455-HC-AHM-IT PCIT vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. and Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011)338 ITR 538(Cal) and deciion in 2019-TIOL-1354-ITAT-DEL DCIT vs. Shri Amit Kumar Jain hold that the impugned deeming fiction does not come into play in the case of a running account involving group entities meeting day to day business exigency(ies) with each other’s funds. We therefore hold that both the learned lower authorities have erred in making the imp…

Bhairavnath Trimbak Kadlag, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1322/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1322/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bhairavnath Trimbak Kadlag, Shop No.5, Mohit Apartment, Near Janalaxmi Bank, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Jail Road, Nashik Road, Nashik-422 101 Pan: Abppk7318H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar

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

…ratuitous loan within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) and therefore, the addition made by the A.O. was not justified. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra [338 ITR 538] was squarely applicable in the instant case and hence, the deeming provisions u/s 2(22)(e) were not attracted to the case of the assessee. Without prejudice to the above contention, assuming without admitting that the provision of section 2(22)(e) are attracted in the instant case, it is submitted as under- 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have ap…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Svarna Infrastructure & Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is also partly allowed for statistical purposes to the extent indicated a...

ITA 1265/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1265/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate & Shri Nirav Sheth, FCA

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

…favour of the appellant and on many other occasions, the balance was in favour of the respondent. There were reciprocal demands between the parties, and the account was mutual." 3. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "The phrase "by way of advance or loan" appearing in sub-clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled…

Pasl Windtech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/AHD/2017[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 2302 & 2366/AHD/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 PASL Windtech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- VS Plot No. 37B, Phse-1, 3 (1)(2), Ahmedabad GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCA 3022G Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Respondent by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of…

ACIT, Circle - 15(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Abci Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1084/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…t the loan being a normal business transaction carrying interest at the rate of 9% would not be hit by the provisions of Section 2(22)(e). Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra 338 ITR 538 for the proposition that only gratuitous loan or advances give by the company would come within the purview of section 2(22(e) but not those cases where loans or advances are given in return for an advantage conferred upon the company by the shareholders. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the jurisdictional tribunal in the case of Zenon…

Smt. Jyotsnaben Rameshbhai Panchal, Mehsana vs. ITO, Mehsana Ward-5, Kadi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikram S. Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

…t has also filed certain document in support of its contention and same were submitted before the lower authorities as well. 9. In support of its contention, ld. A.R. cited a judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 66 (Cal.) wherein similar circumstances matter was decided in favour of the assessee. 10. The CBDT issued a Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12th June, 2017 wherein the CBDT has noted that Courts in the recent past have held that trade advances in the nature of commercial transaction would not fall with the ambit of section 2(22)(e). 6 . A.Y. 2013-…

Mukesh Thakurdas Jaisinghani, Ulhasnagar vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5805/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…well settled that the current account transactions are outside the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld AR rightly placed reliance 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). We find that a similar view was taken in yet another decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Gayatri Chakraborty reported in 407 ITR 730 (Cal). 5.3. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the ld AO to delete the addition made towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of…

Sri Bhaskar Raju, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1828/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 154

…ment is in return to the guarantee given by the assessee. Accordingly it was submitted that it was not a simple loan contemplated u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee placed his reliance on the following decisions:- (a) Pradip Kumar Malhotra (338 ITR 538)(Cal) (b) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P Ltd (318 ITR 476)(Delhi) (c) Bagmane Constructions P Ltd & Ors. CIT (119 DTR 49)(Kar) The learned CIT (Appeals) was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly he confirmed the addition. ITA Nos.1828 & 1829 /Bang/2016 Page 8 of 21 17. The Ld A.R submitted that the assesse…

Asian Business Conection Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT - 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

…Asian Business Connection Private Limited आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2015-16 M/s. Asian Business DCIT-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal FM-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AAICA1206D Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Ayush Gupta, Adv Date of Hearing 10.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The…

R.Lakshminarayanamoorthy, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2783/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Mrs.M.Subashri, JCITFor Respondent: 03.07.2019

Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी $व%म &संह यादव, लेखा सद य के सम) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2783/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Shri R. Lakshminarayanamoorthy, The Dy. Commissioner- C/o. Shri T.N.Seetharaman, Adv., of Income Tax, #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Corporate Circle-1, Chennai-600 086. Coimbatore. [PAN: AATPL 4105 E] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr.R.Kumar, Adv. अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/ Appel…

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2405/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 31F, Ramkrishna Samadhi Ward-45(4), 3, V/S. Road, Kolkata-700054 Government Place [Pan No.Acspj 6607 N] (West), Kolkata-700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18.07.2017 Passed In Case No.118/Cit(A)-13/W-44(1)/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Canvassed In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Making Deemed Dividend Addition Of ₹6,32,449/- In His Hands. The Cit(A);S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “Decision:- 6. I Have Gone Through The Contention Of The Assessee, The Order Passed By The Ao & The Submissions Made By The Appellant. The Decision Of This Appeal Is Given As Under:- 6.1. In This Case The Only Issue Relates To The Addition Of Rs.6,33,449/- As A Deemed Evident Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T Act. While Making Addition The Ao Found That ''During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding M/S. Benchmark Developers Pvt. Ltd For The A. Y 2009-10, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Taken Loan From M/S. Benchmark Developers Pvt. Ltd. Amounting To Rs. 6,60,000/- In Which He Is One Of The Director & Holds About 35% Of

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2009-10 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 31F, Ramkrishna Samadhi Ward-45(4), 3, V/s. Road, Kolkata-700054 Government Place [PAN No.ACSPJ 6607 N] (West), Kolkata-700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-…

Dilip Kumar Chowdhary, Howrah vs. ACIT, Circle - 46, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2460/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2460/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Chowdhary………….…………………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant 545, G.T. Road (South) 6Th Floor Howrah – 711 101 [Pan : Acdpc 4418 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-46, Kolkata……........................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

…arrated above, it is clear that both the parties are beneficiary of the transaction being current account of the above transactions i.e. shifting balances. This issue has been answered by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal) wherein Hon'ble High Court held as under: "The phrase "by way of advance or loan" appearing in sub-clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fix…