(Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar

83 ITR 170Supreme Court of India1972#1811 most cited

What is (Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar authority for?

For the purpose of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, the term 'shareholder' refers exclusively to a registered shareholder of the company, and not a beneficial owner or non-shareholder.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar · CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar · section 2(22)(e) · section 2(6A) · deemed dividend · shareholder definition · registered shareholder · beneficial owner · closely held company · non-shareholder

Sections most often in play

Section 2(22)(e)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(2A)Section 14ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(3)short deduction of tdsclosely held companyinterest on interestaccumulated profitsshort deduction of taxsection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)related party transactionbeneficial ownersection 194j

Judgments citing (Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar

M/S Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/DEL/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…applied at the very threshold In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws wherein it was held that only a 'registered shareholder' of a company can be construed as a 'shareholder' of such company. (Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar: (1972] 83 ITR 170 (SC), Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT: 122 ITR 1 (SC)).Further, in line with the facts of the present case, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd.: 340 ITR 14 (Del.) where the Court was concerned with the application of second limb of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and was confronted with…

Iswar Chand Dubey, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68 (1), Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…t deemed dividend cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the non-shareholder. It was held by the Hon'ble court that "The liability of tax, shareholders, and not in the hands of the firm. “ Further, the Apex Court in the case of C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 considering the provisions of section 2(6A) of the I. T. Act, 1922, which was synonymous to section 2(22)(e) of the current Act, held that shareholder in the context of deemed dividend referred to only registered shareholder. The above view was also confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 1/3 Taxman…

Punit Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…t deemed dividend cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the non-shareholder. It was held by the Hon'ble court that "The liability of tax, shareholders, and not in the hands of the firm. “ Further, the Apex Court in the case of C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 considering the provisions of section 2(6A) of the I. T. Act, 1922, which was synonymous to section 2(22)(e) of the current Act, held that shareholder in the context of deemed dividend referred to only registered shareholder. The above view was also confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 1/3 Taxman…

Mehrunnisan Sherwani, Okhla vs. Income Tax Officer W 28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4728/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…applied at the very threshold In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws wherein it was held that only a 'registered shareholder' of a company can be construed as a 'shareholder' of such company. (Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar: (1972] 83 ITR 170 (SC), Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT: 122 ITR 1 (SC)).Further, in line with the facts of the present case, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd.: 340 ITR 14 (Del.) where the Court was concerned with the application of second limb of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and was confronted with…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further con…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further con…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further con…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further con…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ny/23 Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further con…

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2132/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT
Section 32Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM M/s Pfizer Limited The capital, 1802/1901, ACIT-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4t h Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACP3334M CO No. 110/Mum/2019 (Arising in ITA No. 2108/Mum/018 for A.Y. 2014-15) M/s Pfizer Limited The capital, 1802/1901, ACIT-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4t h Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respond…

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT
Section 32Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM M/s Pfizer Limited The capital, 1802/1901, ACIT-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4t h Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACP3334M CO No. 110/Mum/2019 (Arising in ITA No. 2108/Mum/018 for A.Y. 2014-15) M/s Pfizer Limited The capital, 1802/1901, ACIT-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4t h Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respond…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

ITA 269/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri R.Shankaranarayanan
Section 115Section 115QSection 2(22)Section 391Section 393Section 46ASection 77A

…22)(d) of the Act, are in the nature of deeming provision seeking to enlarge the definition of the term ‘dividend’ and are therefore, to be directly construed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar reported in [1972] 83 ITR 170 (SC) and by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.R.Dass reported in [2012] 204 Taxmann 227 (Delhi). :: 24 :: 15. The Ld.Sr.Counsel for the assessee referring to provisions of Sec.46A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 submitted that, provisions of Sec.46A of the Act provides for taxation of capital gains arising to its shareholders on purchase…

Global Business Conexxtions Pvt.Ltd., Madhya Pradesh vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), Mumbai

ITA 720/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…revenue. 22. Insofar as the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are concerned, we have already extracted this provision and taken note of the conditions/requisites which are to be established for making provision applicable. In CIT v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar [1972] 83 ITR 170, the Supreme Court had traced out the assessee of this provision in the following manner : "Any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interest, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after 31-5-19987 by way of advance or loan. First limb (a) to a shareho…

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) -II vs. M. K. Foundation

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITA/147/2009HC Calcutta09 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th February, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th September, 2008 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In It(Ss)A No.68/Kol/2006 For The Block Period From 01.04.1990 To 24.08.2000. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: (A) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Tribunal Was Justified In Law To Cancel

Section 2(22)(e)Section 260ASection 263

…Tribunal has noted that the undisputed and admitted facts. Thereafter it proceeded to consider as to how a deeming provision should be construed and by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar reported in (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) it held that deeming provision must receive strict interpretation. After such an observation the learned Tribunal has noted the facts that the assessing officer while completing the original block assessment, was fully aware of the matter in dispute. The assessee had clarified before the assessing officer regarding the quantification of dee…

Asst CIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai vs. Gayatri Films & Music P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…ora of judgments over such issue favoring the Appellant. Some of them are; • Mumbai IT AT (SB) in case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 28 (II) ITCL 249 Mumbai E Bench • Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 11 (SC) • CIT v.CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) • CIT v. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) ITA 2087 of 2010 • Pravin B Chheda v. CIT ITA 2483/MUM/2011 Mumbai Tribunal C Bench • CIT v. National Travel Service ITA 219 of 2010 Delhi HC • CIT v. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. ITA 114 of 2012 (Bombay HC) • N S N Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 57 Taxmann.com 113 Bombay HC • ACIT v. Bombay Real Estate Development…

The Dy. CIT 4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Ryder Trans International (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 720/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2012-13 DCIT-4(1), : Revenue Indore V/s M/s Ryder Trans International Pvt. Ltd, 402, Shekhar Central, Palasia Sqaure, Indore : Respondent PAN: AADCR5570J Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri Asish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Date of Hearing 07.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue for Assessme…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Herbert Borwn Pharmaceuticals & Research Laboratories, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2774/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh
Section 2(22)(e)

…, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable for the reason that to receive dividend one must be a shareholder. In support of this contention, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s C.P. Mudaliar, [2972] 83 ITR 170 (SC). The assessee in support of its claim, also relied upon various other judicial pronouncements and made similar arguments. The Assessing Officer after considering detailed submissions of the assessee made disallowance for the reason that the assessee firm having received an advance in whatever form, the same falls within the ambit of the provi…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…d by the decision of the coordinate bench in the matter needs to be examined on the merits of the addition. To support his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of RameswaraLal Sanwarmal versus Commissioner of income 122 ITR 1, state Of Orissa Versus Sudhanshu Sekhar Mishra 1968 AIR 647 (SC) and Bombay Kamgar Sabha versus Abdulbhai faizullabhai &Ors 1976 AIR 1455, Union of India versus Paras laminates P Ltd 1991 AIR 696 (SC) and the decision of the coordinate bench in case of QUALCOMM Incorporated versus Asst Director Of Income Tax (2015) 56 taxmann.com 179 (del). 23. On…

Exotica Housing & Infrstructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(4), New Delhi

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vadilal Lalubhai in 86 ITR 2 and 181 ITR 1 (Kerala), CIT vs. P.V. John. (iv) In the case of CIT vs. Sarathy Mudaliar in 83 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14.3.1. In the case of CIT vs. Sarathi Mudaliar in 83 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provision of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which is parimateria to Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act), observed as under: “Sec 2(6a)(2) gives an artificial definition of ‘dividend’. It does…

ACIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Associated Hospitality Ltd Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1348/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ए’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI Before Shri MAHAVIR SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2013-14 DCIT-12(1)(1), M/s Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAFCA7847P Shri Anadi Varma CIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rajesh S. Shah 20/02/2019 सुनव…