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 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 68 Section 10 Section 10(2A)Section 115JB

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profits section 142a deemed dividend section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)section 150 surrender of income mat credit beneficial owner section 158bd business expediency section 80ic

Judgments citing Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

ITO, WD-36(3), Kolkata vs. Sri Siddhartha Paul, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1303/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA

Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…or for some of the loan facilities taken by the company and had also pledged his personal property to the bank to borrow money for the company. He relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs CIT, West Bengal 338 ITR 538(Cal) and submitted that under a similar circumstances the Hon’ble High Court had held that the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not be attracted. The ld. CIT(A) granted relief by applying the proposition of law laid down in such cases by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the…

ITO, WD-29(4), Kolkata vs. Tripta Banka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 698/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 698/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(4), Kolkata -Vs- Tripta Banka [Pan: Akppb 6305 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

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

…s Pvt. Ltd. for the very same reason based on the very same board resolution passed by the said company. In that case, the Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT reported in 338 ITR 538 (Kol) wherein it was held as under: We therefore, find that the authorities below erred in law in treating the advance given by the company to the assessee by way of compensation to the assessee for keeping his property as mortgage on behalf of company to reap the benefit of loan as deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the A…

Deven Chachra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4210/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate and Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR

Section 2(22)(e)

…rrowed any money. He stated that Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable in respect of a normal business transaction. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT – [2011] 338 ITR 538. He also relied upon the Circular No.19/2017 of CBDT. 6. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below and he stated that since the assessee has substantial interest in the concerns which advanced the money and also the concerns which received the borrowed money, Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was clearly applicable. He…

Deven Chachra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4209/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate and Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR

Section 2(22)(e)

M/S Snehapushp Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1010/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…1 Snehapusph Barter Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] आयकर अपील सं"या / I.T.A No. 1010/Kol/2016 "नधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Snehapusph Barter Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kolkata-2. (PAN: AAICS4911P) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Date of Hearing 03.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2017 Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Appellant/ अपील…

Bharat Bir Mohindra, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 462/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 462/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gangadhara Sastry, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. P. Suresh Rao, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…consideration is definitely not a "business transaction" and it does not result in any benefit to the company making payment, therefore this case does not support the case of the assessee in any way. The facts of the case In PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA vs. CIT in 338 ITR 538 (Cal) relied on by the Id.AR are entirely different from that of the assessee’s case. The provisions of sec 2(22)(e) create a fiction bringing in amount paid otherwise than as dividend into the net of dividends. Therefore, according to CIT(A), this clause must be given a strict interpretation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o…

L.Suryanarayanamoorthy, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…onal assets as collateral for the purpose of loan raised ITA No.1510/Mds/2017. :- 3 -: by the said company from the bank in addition to a person guarantee. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 assessee argued that, he having offered his personal assets as collateral with the bank, for enabling the company to take a loan, there was a quid-pro- quo. Contention of the assessee was that the amount received by him from the company was not gratuitous but in lieu of the personal guarantee given by him for the loan raised by the company fro…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Roop Bansal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5672/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961: (i) CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del), (ii) CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 376 (Del) (m) CIT vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462(Del), (iv) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538(Cal), and (v) ACIT Vs. Sunil Chopra 002 ITR (Trib.) 469 (Del.) 8.15 Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case as discussed above, material available on record, including the additional evidence and also the remand report of the AO., it is held that the payment made by M/s. Marigold to M/s. Nova (leading to addition of Rs. 11,00,00,0…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Roop Bansal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

Ratan Taxtiles P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 527/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 527/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s Ratan textiles P. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Vs. Papriwal Cottage, Ajmer Road, Circle-2, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 3760 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 595/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Dy. Commissioner of M/s Ratan te…

Jaidev Prasad Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2034/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year:2010-11 Jaidev Prasad Agarwal Vs. I.T.O., Ward-35(2), Aayakar Bhawan, (Poorva), 7Th Floor, 110, C/O Rawalwasia Trading Company 26/1, Armenian Street, 2Nd Floor, Shanti Palli, E.M.Bypass, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001. 7000107. Pan : Acqpa 9991 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri V.N.Purohit, Fca For The Respondent : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V.N.Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT

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

…ITA No.1645/Kol/2016-M/s. CMG Agro (P)Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES : SMC : KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2010-11 Jaidev Prasad Agarwal Vs. I.T.O., Ward-35(2), Aayakar Bhawan, (Poorva), 7th Floor, 110, C/o Rawalwasia Trading Company 26/1, Armenian Street, 2nd Floor, Shanti Palli, E.M.Bypass, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001. 7000107. PAN : ACQPA 9991 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri V.N.Purohit, FCA For the Respondent : Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT Date of Hearing : 03.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017. ORDER Thi…

Smt.Vidya Devi Ladhani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 118/BANG/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. 136 DTR 65(Kar) ii. CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions 237 Taxmann 728 iii. Order dt.31.8.2016 in ITA No.1215/Mum/ in the case of Anil Mahavir Gupta Vs. ACIT. iv. CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 (P&H) v. Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal) vi. CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) Placing reliance on the above judgments, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment under Section 153A can be made on the basis of seized material and further the addition should be strictly based on the evidence found during the course of search or information availa…

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No.421/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. Circle-1, Kolkata. (PAN: AAACT9780F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 01.03.2017 Date of pronouncement: 01.03.2017 For the Appellant: N o n e For the Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A), Central-1, Kolkata vide appeal No. 104/CC-VII/CIT(A)C-I/11-12 dated 12.12.2003.…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5194/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negia C I T – 25(2) Shri Mahesh K. Shah Room No. 108, 1St Floor B-15, Paras Darshan C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (East) B.K.C., Bandra (East) Mumbai 400066 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaips6406N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 69C

…2009- 10 and the Coordinate Bench in its order in ITA No. 6216/Mum/2012 dated 08.10.2014 has dealt with the matter in paras 2 to 6 thereof and following the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal), the Hon'ble 9 Shri Mahesh K. Shah Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del) and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagin Das M. Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 398 (Bom) upheld the action of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made under section 2(22)(e) and thereby dismi…

Sharad Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-867/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) Sharad Gupta, Vs ACIT, H.no.686, Sector-7-B, Circle-1, Faridabad. Faridabad. PAN-ADTPG3099B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. B.B.Mathur, CA Revenue by Sh.Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 05.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2016 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 08.12.2014 of CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to 2007 – 08 assessment year on the following ground:- 1. “That…

Ram Karan Tiwari, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-54, Kolkata

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

ITA 1783/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…the said property, however, was not effected and the property belonging to the assessee was ultimately sold by the assessee to some other party in the year 2008. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra [338 ITR 538], he has contended that the amount in question received by the assessee as a consequence of any other consideration, which is beneficial to the Company, cannot be said to be deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. When he was asked to file the copy of the Unregistered Agreement entered into between the assessee and M/s.…

Mr. Manish Mimani, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T.(OSD), Central Circle-V, Kolakta, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2873/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…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 hasbeen answered by Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhatra 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 fi…

S.M. Arshad, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1384/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri S.M.Arshad, Flat No.604, Door No.14-2-175-40, Light House Condominium, Light House Hill Road, Mangalore-575001. … Appellant Pa No.Aczpa0799F Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Mangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…uper market of Nilgiris. Further, it was contended that the properties of the assessee were pledged with bank for obtaining loan for the company and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kr.Malhotra vs. CIT (338 ITR 538) it cannot termed as deemed dividend. The said submissions were not accepted by the CIT(A) and he upheld the addition holding that the fact that subsequently loans were repaid has no bearing on the taxability of loans received as deemed dividend, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Miss P.Sarada vs. CIT (229…

M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 M/s The Hooghly Mills V/s. DCIT, Central Circle-VII, Co. Ltd. C/o, Salarpuria 18, Rabindra Sarani, Jajodia & Co. 7, C.R. Kolkata-700 001 Avenue, Kolkata-700 072 [PAN No.AAACT 9780 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-05-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pro…

Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale, Thane vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5410/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5410/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" Shri Chandrasekhar Maruti Vs. Acit-10(2), Mumbai- Musale Flat No.1203/1204, 400020 12Th Floor, Carlyle Raheja Garden, Lbs Marg, Off. Tip Top Thane, Mumbai-400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm 3914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Chetan A. Karia राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. S.Pandian सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 21-5-2012. 2. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated The Addition Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) At The Hands Of The Assessee On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property & Other Sources. The Assessee Was Having Major Shareholding In 3 Companies Namely; (I) M/S.Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. (Ii) M/ S. Advance Scientific Equipment P.Ltd. & (Iii) M/S. Star Earth Minerals P.Ltd. During Assessment Proceedings, From The Replies Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Noticed That M/S. Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. Had Advanced An Amount Of Rs.31,00,000/- On 16.12.2008 To M/S. Advance Scientific Equipment P. Ltd. & M/S.

Section 2(22)(e)

…e extended beyond that legitimate field." The Hon’ble High Court further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court “CIT v. Raj Kumar” [2009] 318 ITR 462(Delhi) and Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of “Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. ITO” (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal), and has observed that the combined meaning of the various clause of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is to mean that the payments included as deemed dividend would mean the gratuitous payments to a shareholder meant to avoid the taxation of Income u/s.115O of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court (supra) further relied upon the decisio…