Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (ITAT Bombay – Special Bench)

ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (ITAT Bombay – Special Bench)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 16, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

U/s 2 (22) (e), deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a “shareholder” of the lender company;

The expression “shareholder” in s. 2 (22) (e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial shareholder than the provisions of s. 2(22) (e) will not apply. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the provisions of Sec. 2(22) (e) will not apply.

Related Judgements

  1. Saurabh Srivastava vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    Consideration received by an assessee for agreeing not to compete constitutes a capital receipt even though (i) the period of restraint is only 18 months and (ii) the assessee continued service with the payer-company as Managing Director.
  2. ACIT vs. Star India (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Deduction u/s 80-HHF (1) is available in respect of the ‘profits of the business’ which means the entire business profits and not only the profits derived from the export activity. Accordingly, deduction is allowable even if the export activity has resulted in a loss provided there is an overall…
  3. Shri. Ranjeet Singh vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Where the assessee was assessed at Delhi but a notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO in Ghaziabad and the assessee had protested the usurpation of jurisdiction from the beginningRead more ›
  4. DCIT vs. ING Investment (ITAT Mumbai) 

    For purposes of s. 14A, only the expenditure which is proved to have a nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed and not on an ad-hoc basis. Read more ›
  5. Zeus Air Services vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the notice u/s 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed period HELD the AO had no power to pass a block assessment order u/s 158BC and the same was null and void.
    Read more ›