Shahir Sami Khatib v. ITO

98 Taxmann.com 453High Court2018#21704 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Shahir Sami Khatib v. ITO

DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai vs. M/S. Susee Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 832/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…impugned order. In these circumstances, the Revenue's appeal, i.e. T.C(A) No.105 of 2017, pertaining to AY 2007-08, with regard to the said questions, is dismissed." 5.8. In another decision which is relevant in the context is Shahir Sami Khatib Vs ITO (2018) 98 Taxmann.com 453 (Mum)/(2018) 259 Taxman 160 (Mum). ft was found that the appellant was holding more than 10% of the equity shares of the lending company and was also having substantial interest in the borrowing company, It was held that the amount of loan given by lender company to the borrower company was rightly added as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of…

M/S Susee Automotive (P) Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -2, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 784/CHNY/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.784/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 001. Corporate Circle-2, [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.832/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Susee Automotive (P.) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.25, Tamilsangam Road, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Aaocs-8509-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…impugned order. In these circumstances, the Revenue's appeal, i.e. T.C(A) No.105 of 2017, pertaining to AY 2007-08, with regard to the said questions, is dismissed." 5.8. In another decision which is relevant in the context is Shahir Sami Khatib Vs ITO (2018) 98 Taxmann.com 453 (Mum)/(2018) 259 Taxman 160 (Mum). ft was found that the appellant was holding more than 10% of the equity shares of the lending company and was also having substantial interest in the borrowing company, It was held that the amount of loan given by lender company to the borrower company was rightly added as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of…

M/S Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4505/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMAR JIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Parthiv Enterprises, ITO-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1st Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAEFP8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh, Judicial Member: The assessee has filed the above mentioned appeal again…

Shahir Sami Khatib v. ITO (98 Taxmann.com 453) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax