Walchand & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

100 ITR 598High Court1975#10281 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Walchand & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

SHREEKANT RAY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-61(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 824/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Bhandary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shreekant Ray, ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata, C/o Subash Agarwal & Bamboo Villa, 169, Associates, A.J.C. Bose Road, Advocates Siddha Gibson, Vs Kolkata - 700014 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 (PAN: AGOPR8766J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Nitish Bhandary, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHR…

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…, Bhubaneswar, the ld. AR of the assessee company simply stated that it had availed loans from three companies in the ordinary course of business and paid interest on it after deducting TDS. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Walchand & Co. vs. CIT (100 ITR 598) held as under " By its objects clause the trust company was, inter alia, authorised to advance or loan moneys on security of shares, stocks, etc., and also to receive moneys on deposit, interest or otherwise and to lend moneys to other persons with or without security and on such terms as it was expedient and in particular to customers and all o…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2396/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1383/Del/2017 [by Assessee] And ITA No. 2396/Del/2017 [by Department] (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. CIT, M/s Futurz Next Services Central Circle-29, Vs. (Private) Limited, New Delhi FA - 45, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi – 110 027. PAN: AABCJ7692K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms Ashima Neb Sr DR Mr. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ved Jain Advocate Shri Rishabh Jain CA Shri Ashish Goel, C. A.; Date of Hearing 31/10/2019 and 16/03/…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI ANUMOD SHARMA, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6892/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6892/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Shri Anumod Sharma, Tax, Central Circle-16, D-305A, Laburnum Apartment, New Delhi-110055 Sushant Lok, Sector-28, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amyps5587L Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…that the expenses paid or amount transferred to different persons by M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the assessee also came under the purview of deemed dividend. The AO placed reliance on the following judgments: " Walchand & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1975) 100 ITR 598(Bom) 3 Anumod Sharma " CIT vs. K. Shrinavasan 50 ITR 788 " CIT vs. P. Sarada 154ITR 387 (1985) (Mad) " MD Jindal vs. CIT 164 1TR 028 (Cal) (1987) " Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (1977)(SC) " Rajesh P. Ved vs. AC1T 001 ITR 275 (ITAT Mumbai) (2010) " Ms. Sarada P vs. CIT 229 ITR 444(SC) (1998) 6. During the arguments before us, the ld. DR ar…

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…e it is deemed as an unexplained credit u/s. 68. Temporary loan/advance(s) were, 13 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT accordingly, even prior thereto, held as falling within the mischief of s. 2(22)(e). As explained in Walchand & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 598 (Bom), noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra), the fact that the loan or advance was factually repaid or made good within a short period, is no defence to the attraction of the provision. Though stated to be a current account, the nature of the account showed it to be a loan, made further amply clear by the fact of charge of interest at th…

SHRI GOVIND SWAROOP GARG,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 614/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K C Meena (Add.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 614/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke Shri Govind Swaroop Garg, Ravan The ITO, Vs. Ki Bagichi, Ajmer (Raj.) Ward1(2), Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADNPG9550F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri K C Meena (Add.C…

ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ANUSHREE V. KHETAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 4975/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Sing, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4975/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ito-24(1)(2) Smt. Anushree V. Khetan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 78, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aocpk 8810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…rds if the loans/ advance obtained during the year under consideration has been paid back by the end of the relevant year. 8. The Assessing Officer further referred to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decisions in the case of Walchand & Co. Ltd. us. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 598 (Bom) VKJ Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT (1993) 204 ITR 146 (Bom) that even if the loan is repaid within a few days, it will still be caught in the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the shareholder will have to pay lax. For instance, a shareholder takes a loan of Rs. 5 Lakhs from a company which he returns back within a week. He is sa…

SHRI HEMANT JAIN,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

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

ITA 632/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 43Section 73

…. The Ld. CIT (A) further observed that even amount of Rs. 1 crore received on 8.2.2008 and returned back on 12.02.2008 , even then it amounts deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act in the light of ratio laid down in the case of Walchand & Co. Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 598(Bom) . Hence, temporary loans or short holding of loan amounts to deemed dividend within the mischief of section 2(22) (e) of the Act. Further the said company had sufficient surplus and reserve, hence, conditions of section 2(22) (e) are fulfilled. Accordingly, CIT (A) had confirmed the addition made by the AO. 7. Being, aggrieved the assesse…

NAMITA V SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. CIT CITY II, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha
Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…lying on the decisions in Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. (supra) and Bhaumik Colour (P). Ltd. (supra), nor has any been brought to our notice. We may further add that our decision is also in harmony with the law as explained in Walchand & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 598 (Bom) (where the loan was for a short period of 23 days) and CIT vs. Badiani (P.K.) [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom) (providing for a notional reduction in the accumulated profits on repayment of loan/advance), also noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra). The assessee has, we may add, placed a number of decisions by the Tribunal on file, to some of…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINDHU HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2766/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…vi) Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT – 41 ITR 275 (SC) 8 ITA No.2766/Del./2012 (vii) CIT vs. P.K. Abubucker – 135 Taxman 77 (Mad.) (viii) Mr. Ravindra D. Amin vs. CIT – 208 ITR 815 (Guj.) (ix) L. Alagusundaram Chettiar – 109 ITR 508 (Mad.) (x) Walchand & Co. Ltd. – 100 ITR 598 (Bom.) (xi) In view of these submissions, ld. DR pleaded that the orders of the CIT(A) be set aside on this issue and the appeal of the department be allowed. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT (A) and for the sake of clarity, the same are reproduced hereunder :- "It was submitted vide letter dated 1…