← All Phrases

“closely held company”

Losses & Set-offSection 79Section 79300 judgments

The decision most relied on for closely held company is CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (340 ITR 14), cited in 202 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on closely held company

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
340 ITR 14 · 2012 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
324 ITR 263 · 2010 · High Court
111
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of the beneficial shareholder who receives the benefit of the loan or advance, and not in the hands of the company receiving the loan.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah
290 ITR 433 · 2007 · Supreme Court
99
citing judgments

For Section 2(22)(e) to apply, a payment by a company must be in the nature of a loan or advance, and the company must have accumulated profits. Such payments to a concern in which a shareholder, holding more than 10% voting power, has a substantial interest are deemed dividends if the shareholder ultimately benefits, even if routed through different modes or concerns.

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT
229 ITR 444 · 1998 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

(Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar
83 ITR 170 · 1972 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Madhur Housing and Development Company
401 ITR 152 · 2018 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a 'concern' where a common shareholder has a substantial interest is not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) for the 'concern' if it is not a shareholder of the lending company. Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is taxable only in the hands of the registered or beneficial shareholder.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, Citation No.
160 Taxmann 276 · 2007 · Supreme Court
39
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aims to prevent tax evasion by treating certain payments made by closely held companies to shareholders or their concerns as dividends.

PCIT v. BST Infratech Ltd.
161 Taxmann.com 668 · 2024 · High Court
32
citing judgments

When shares are issued at a premium, the genuineness of the transaction is paramount, not necessarily the source of the investor's funds. The court emphasizes verifying the transaction's authenticity, even if investor identity is established.

Judgments citing closely held company

ITO-12(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Mystical Infratech Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4266/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shr Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4266/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer- M/S. Mystical Infaratech Pvt. Ltd., 12(3)(4),Room No.147A, 1St बिधम/ Ground Floor, D. B.House,, Floor ,Ayankar Bhavan, Vs. Gen A.K.Vaidya Marg, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 063. 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcm1049J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Nimesh Yadav( Cit Dr) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja Ramder , Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 30.03.2017, Passed By Cit (Appeals)-20 Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Nimesh Yadav( CIT DR)For Respondent: Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)

present case the appellant had subscribed to the shares of the group concerns which came into existence or were created in the closely held company due to fresh allotment. It is not a case of transfer of shares from a third party below the market value of shares

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

this regard the ld AR drew our attention to the provisions of section 2(22)(e) which deals with payment by a closely held company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder and requires payment of a 'repayable' amount to shareholders. Such payment to the extent of accumulated

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

this regard the ld AR drew our attention to the provisions of section 2(22)(e) which deals with payment by a closely held company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder and requires payment of a 'repayable' amount to shareholders. Such payment to the extent of accumulated

DCIT, Range- 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by th

ITA 4453/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., Tax, Range 8(2), The Leela Kempinski Sahar, R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach 3167 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 72ASection 79

further submitted that as per section 79 of the if there is a change in shareholding of the closely held company in if there is a change in shareholding of the closely held company in if there is a change in shareholding of the closely held company in any previous ... public is not not substantially interested, and therefore , and therefore M/s Kovalam Hotels Ltd was a closely held valam Hotels Ltd was a closely held company, prior to change of shareholdings company, prior to change of shareholdings during previous year ng previous year 2005-06. The provisions of section

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

case are that during the course of verification of records and the material available in the case of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd. , a closely held company, assessed in this circle, it was noticed from the General Ledger Report, relating to the said company, pertaining to "Loans to Directors" under ... group name "Loans and Advances" for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, which gave the details of certain debits in the accounts of said closely held company ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 22 of 78 it has treated , in its accounts, a total

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

case are that during the course of verification of records and the material available in the case of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd. , a closely held company, assessed in this circle, it was noticed from the General Ledger Report, relating to the said company, pertaining to "Loans to Directors" under ... group name "Loans and Advances" for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, which gave the details of certain debits in the accounts of said closely held company ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 22 of 78 it has treated , in its accounts, a total

Ub Ostan (India) P. Ltd, Pune vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7039/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ub Ostan (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Officer-1(3)-4, Sahyadri Sadan, Tilak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Pune-411-030. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aabcu 2815 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 56Section 68

clause (viib) effective Assessment Year 2013 effective Assessment Year 2013-14 to tax excess premium 14 to tax excess premium charged by a closely held company; and case of the Appellant charged by a closely held company; and case of the Appellant charged by a closely held company; and case ... under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act determining any determining any excess premium charged in case of closely held company, and excess premium charged in case of closely held company, and excess premium charged in case of closely held company, and therefore argument of the therefore argument

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

make requisite enquiry on the issue as to "what prompted the subscribers" to subscribe Shares at a high premium, issued by a closely held company. 5. The fair market value can be book value or value as per discounted cash flow method. In this regard, a report of valuation dated

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

strategic investors is not doubted by the learned AO. provisions of s. 5 6(2) (viib) require that in case of closely held company, the shares -should be issued at its fair market value to resident investors based on notified valuation formula by a notified expert. 21 M/s. Travecom Global ... were introduced as a series of measures to deter the generation and use of unaccounted money by increasing the onus of proof on closely held companies for funds received from shareholders as well as taxing share premium in excess of fair market value. Thus, in order to find

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha
Section 54F

material facts need to be taken note of. The assessee before us was a shareholder in Mandhana Exports Pvt Ltd - a closely held company owned and managed by Mandhana family for a number of years. In the year 1996, the assessee company entered into a joint venture arrangement with Bornemann

M/S. Devanam Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2644/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

I.T.Act amounting to Rs.2,00,75,000. The A.O. held that the payment is made by a closely held company, i.e., M/s.Kausthubha Project Private Limited (KPPL), to the assessee and assessee is a shareholder having substantial interest in the payers company (The assessee is having 74.5% share in KPPL). Further ... provisions of the Section 2(22)(e) of the Act seeks to tax the loans and advances made to shareholders by a closely held company as deemed dividends in the hands of the shareholders. This is intended to prevent tax evasion in situations where closely held companies distribute accumulated profit

DCIT Circle-15 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rankin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 56(2)(viib)

deter the generation and use of unaccounted money. To this end, I propose: (i) ….. (ii) …... (iii) Increasing the onus of proof on closely held companies for funds received from shareholders as well as taxing share premium in excess of fair market value.” In this regard, it is submitted that ... Speech while moving in amendments to Finance Bill. 2012 “It has been proposed in the Finance Bill, 2012 that any consideration received by closely held company in excess of fair market value would be taxable. Exemption is provided to angel investors who invest in start-up company” Supplementary Circular explaining

M/S. Rama Recycling Pvt. Tld., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir.- 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1102/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & M/S. Rama Recycling Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2 1711, World Trade Centre – 1 Cgo Building Cufe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Rama Scrap Recycling Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Central Circle – 2 181, Maker Tower “E" Cgo Building, 9Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(3) V. M/S. Rama Recycling (P) Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor {Formerly Rama Scrap Recycling Pvt. Ltd.,} 181, Maker Tower “E" Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

payments as payment for purchase of the flats in their books of account. 6.4. The appellants further submit that since they are a closely held company and the the directors are family members, there were no disputes that could have arisen in the future. The directors remained under a bona

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

provisos to section 68, with effect from 1-4-2013 (assessment year 2013-14). First proviso to enlarges the onus of a closely held company and provides that if a closely held company receives any shares application money or share capital or share premium or the like, it should also ... from that which is followed in case of a company seeking share capital from the public at large. 13. In the case of closely held companies, investments are made by known persons. Therefore, a higher onus is required to be placed on such companies besides the general onus to establish

Pravin Laxmichand Chheda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pravin Laxmichand Vs. Acit – 24(3) Chheda Room No. 413, 4Th 302, Aavishkar Society, Floor, Piramal Sv Road, Irla Bridge Chambers, Parel Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc1278P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Yogesh Thar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. (A) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer Of Assessing The Loan Taken From Sadguru Krupa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Herein Referred As "Company") On 05.05.2013 Of Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. Rs.25,00,000/- As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (B) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Company Did Not Have Accumulated Profits As On The Date On Which The Loan Was Advanced. (C) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Manner Of Computation Of Accumulated Profits Adopted By The Learned Assessing Officer. (D) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Company Had Followed The Principles Of Revenue Recognition Laid Down In Accounting Standard 9 Issued By Icai. (E) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law In Relying On The Statement Of Mr. Dllip Porwal Without Giving Your Appellant The Opportunity To Cross-Examine Him. (F) Your Appellant Prays That The Additions Made U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Against The Provisions Of Law & Against The Principals Of Natural Justice & May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Yogesh Thar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

assessee has obtained a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from M/s Sadguru Krupa Construction Pvt Ltd by cheque dated 06.05.2013 and is a closely held company in which the public are not substantially interested. The assessee does not have any business activity and the company is in the line of development ... held to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act die to the following reasons: 1. The company is a closely held company, not being a company in which the public is substantially interested. 2. The assessee has more than 10% shareholding as on date of payment

M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 10ASection 234CSection 72

interest of justice and equity.” Page 3 of 14 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is closely held company engaged in the business of providing information technology services including custom application development, analytics and data migration. For year under consideration, assessee filed its return

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

directed to look, inter alia, into these aspects in quantifying the amount of eligible deduction. a. The assessee-company was a closely held company in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2003-2004 and as such there was no question of the listing of its shares and having

Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9042/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9042/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Ca, Circle-12(2), C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci9247F Assessee By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

equity shares of face value of Rs.10/- each as per chart given below to M/s Tangerine Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. which is a closely held company of the assessee company: Date of No. of Face Security Fare Issue Excess price allotment shares value premium value price

Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8259/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktwit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

Section 143Section 92B

established primarily for the purpose of carrying on the business of trading of sunglasses and spectacles frames in India. The appellant being a closely held company 99.99 percent of its equity shares are held by Luxottica Holland. 7. The details of the international transaction entered by the assessee with

ITO, Ward-10(3), New Delhi vs. Gra Enterprises P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1503/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Ito Vs Gra Enterprises Ward-10(3) K-20, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Room No. 374, C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi Pan-Aadcg3290L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv Respondent By Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

during the year out of which an amount of Rs. 950,000,00/- was received from M/s Telecare Network India (P), a closely held company having its office at Zen House, 261, Kohinoor Enclave, Western Marg, Saidullajab, New Delhi. The Assessing Officer was of the view that as per share