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

Gurpreet Singh Chawla, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1714/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishigurpreet Singh Chawla, Ito, 341, Joshi Road, Ward-13(4), Vs. Karol Bagh, New Delhi, New Delhi Pan:Aaapc2763N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasenthan, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…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…

Mr. Manish Mimani, Kolkata vs. CIT, Central - I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mr.Manish Mimani -Versus- C.I.T., Central-I, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aetpm1173K) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Angam Shaiza, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…rrated 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 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 fix…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S Bonie Apparels (P) Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1295/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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

…CIT(Appeals) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Limited reported in 318 ITR 476 and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra reported in 338 ITR 538. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. D.R. has relied on the order I.T.A. No. 1295/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 4 of the Assessing Officer…

Smt. Sangita Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1817/KOL/2009[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 2(22)(e)

…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…

Nalin Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2007-08 Sh.Nalin Gupta Vs. Acit, Circle 1 H.No. 686, Sector 7B Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Adtpg 3101 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Rajneesh Behari Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. M.K.Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2007-08 Sh.Nalin Gupta vs. ACIT, Circle 1 H.No. 686, Sector 7B Faridabad Faridabad PAN: ADTPG 3101 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh.Rajneesh Behari Mathur, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. M.K.Jain, Sr.D.R. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad dt. 4.3.2015 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2. Facts in brief:- The facts leading to the addition are as follows. The assessee was h…

Vivek I Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3598/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3598/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ Shri Vivek I Gupta, The Ito-12(2)(2), D/21, Dhanraj Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Csm Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepg 1004E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :09.12.2015

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)

…ng reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 376. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pradipkumar Malhotra Vs CIT 338 ITR 538. The Ld. Counsel concluded by stating that since the transactions are purely commercial in nature, therefore, provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied. 4 ITA. No.3598/M/2013 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) but could not bring any decision in favour of the Rev…

ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vikramditya Kukreja, Mumbai

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

ITA 1189/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-2008) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -19(3)(4), Shri Vikramaditya Kukreja, 1001, 11Th Floor, 29 Sea, Piramal Chamber, Vs. World, Room No.304, Perry Cross Road, Lalbaug, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“ F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-2008) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -19(3)(4), Shri Vikramaditya Kukreja, 1001, 11th Floor, 29 Sea, Piramal Chamber, Vs. World, Room No.304, Perry Cross Road, Lalbaug, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AJFPK8837P अऩीरधथी ओय से / Revenue by Shri Vishwas Jadhav प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by Shri Naresh Kumar…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata. vs. M/S Machino Techno (Sales) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

ITA 172/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Respondent: Shri P. K. Chakraborty, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ness of that company, which is evident from the P&L Account of the said company. Copy of which was filed before the AO as well as before CIT(A). The CIT(A) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kr. Malhotra Vs. CIT (2011 338 ITR 538 (Kol) allowed the claim of the assessee vide para 8 as under: “8. Appeal on ground no. 6 is against the addition of Rs. 1,16,50,000/- as deemed dividend by applying section 2(22) (e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The fact of the case is that Sri M. D. Jindal, is a substantial share holder in the assessee company as well as in M/s. Machino Transport Pv…

ITO WD - 2(2), Kolkata. vs. Smt. Gayatri Chakraborty., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 151/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-2(2), -Versus- Smt. Gayatri Chakraborty Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Acppc 8419G) (Respondent) (Appellant )

For Appellant: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 77A

…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 fi…

Mohammed Ahmed, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1659/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/S. Acit, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan No.Acxpa 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Memberand Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/s. ACIT, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN No.ACXPA 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Shri Niloy Baran Som, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 29-09-2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant M…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Smt. Reeta Lankalingam, Chennai

ITA 2242/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Dr. Anitha Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rangaraj, IRS, CIT
Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(3)

…responding made either with the bank or with the company towards release of the properties mortgaged as was the fact in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra. (supra). Therefore the reliance of the appellant on the said case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT [2011] 338 ITR 538/203 Taxman 110 is also misplaced. Reliance is placed on the decision of ITAT HYDERABAD Bench ‘A’ in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3) v. B. Dhanunjaya Rao [2013] 29 taxmann.com 254 (Hyd.) wherein the ITAT, distinguishing the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT (supra), held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were ap…

National Academy of Construction vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) -I

ITTA/474/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013