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 Posts:

  • PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd (Bombay High Court) Sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in any Assessment Year as a loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the Assessee. Subsequently, if any remission or waiver is granted in respect of which such…
  • Doshi Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (Special Bench) The provisions of chapter X are not impeding with the manner of the computation of exemption under section 10A of the Act, but it is to work out the true ALP qua the sale price of the impugned international transaction. Therefore we disregard the contentions of the ld. AR for…
  • Ivan Singh vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) The crucial phrase in Section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained, may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of “that previous year” also lends support to the contentions of Dr.…
  • Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) The moot question is, therefore, the disposal of the objections by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 26th March, 2004 constitutes sufficient compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) or, whether it was necessary for the…
  • CIT vs. Sadiq Sheikh (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) If the ITAT were to have considered the aforesaid circumstances, which, according to us, the ITAT was duty-bound to, we are quite sure that the ITAT would not have, nevertheless, found the so-called explanation of the assessees acceptable or in compliance with the provisions of Section 68 of the said…
  • Usha Exports vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The reasons also refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.N.K.Proteins Ltd. (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT v. DCIT ). Even this decision was before the Assessing Officer in the proceeding pursuant to first reopening notice. The Petitioner, along with its objections, placed explanatory note as to how the…

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 ›