Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

67 ITR 315Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1968#13248 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also reported as

85 ITD 463

Sections most often in play

Section 115-OSection 2(22)Section 237Section 115QSection 23(2)Section 250Section 1981Section 23(2) of Exim Act

Judgments citing Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT-3(1)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9462/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9460/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1999-00) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ita No. 9457/Mum/2025 Ita No. 9461/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ita No. 9462/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2001-02) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 2(22)Section 23(2)Section 237Section 250

…its shareholders amounted to distribution of dividend. That means that dividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a compan…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9461/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9460/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1999-00) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ita No. 9457/Mum/2025 Ita No. 9461/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ita No. 9462/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2001-02) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 2(22)Section 23(2)Section 237Section 250

…its shareholders amounted to distribution of dividend. That means that dividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a compan…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9460/MUM/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9460/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1999-00) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ita No. 9457/Mum/2025 Ita No. 9461/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ita No. 9462/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2001-02) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 2(22)Section 23(2)Section 237Section 250

…ividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a company to its shareholders would lose the character of dividend merely because…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9459/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9460/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1999-00) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ita No. 9457/Mum/2025 Ita No. 9461/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ita No. 9462/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2001-02) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 2(22)Section 23(2)Section 237Section 250

…ividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a company to its shareholders would lose the character of dividend merely because…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9458/MUM/2025[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9460/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1999-00) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ita No. 9457/Mum/2025 Ita No. 9461/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ita No. 9462/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2001-02) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 2(22)Section 23(2)Section 237Section 250

…ividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a company to its shareholders would lose the character of dividend merely because…

DCIT-3(1)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9457/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9460/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1999-00) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ita No. 9457/Mum/2025 Ita No. 9461/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ita No. 9462/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2001-02) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 2(22)Section 23(2)Section 237Section 250

…its shareholders amounted to distribution of dividend. That means that dividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a compan…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9456/MUM/2025[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9460/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1999-00) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ita No. 9457/Mum/2025 Ita No. 9461/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ita No. 9462/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2001-02) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 2(22)Section 23(2)Section 237Section 250

…its shareholders amounted to distribution of dividend. That means that dividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a compan…

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

ITA 1074/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &
Section 143(3)Section 199Section 44

…dividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon‘ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a company to its shareholders would lose the character of dividend merely because…