Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.35 seconds)
Msn Life Sciences Private ... vs Acit., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad on 4 February, 2025 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. on 22 September, 2009

20. Similar view has been expressed by various Courts in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay), Jamuna Vernekar Vs CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka),CIT Vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H),and CIT Vs Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad). This legal position is further fortified from the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 (Pg No.77 of PB-I), where it has been clarified that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and that such views have attained finality. The CBDT, therefore, stated that it is a settled position that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Though, the Assessing Officer and LD.CIT(A) have taken cognizance of the said circular and applied the same to the appellant's case keeping in view the trading transactions between the appellant company and recipient companies, which resulted in debit balance in the account of the recipient companies at the end of the year, but both authorities have misdirected themselves in holding that payments made to the recipient companies in excess of 150% or 200% of purchases from such company cannot be treated as 'trade advances' in the nature of commercial transactions. The AO has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 150% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly held the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similarly, the LD.CIT(A) has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 200% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly upheld the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In our considered view, the said approach of the AO/CIT(A) is arbitrary and the same is not founded on any settled principle laid down by the Courts or on any stipulation conveyed by the Board through a circular regarding the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. The AO/CIT(A) has not revealed the basis on which they arrived at the threshold of 150%/200% of purchases for accepting the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. In the absence of 47 ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 specification of the relevant basis by the AO/CIT(A), the same is required to be regarded as arbitrary and non-maintainable. Further, having accepted that purchases are being made regularly from the recipient companies and payments in the nature of trade advances are being made to the said companies against the purchases, the AO/CIT(A) has drawn an artificial line for segregating the payments into 'trade advances' which are in the nature of commercial transactions and 'loans or advance' which do not have such commercial character. Such an approach of the AO/CIT(A) is not permissible since the extent to which trade advances are paid is purely a commercial decision which is contingent on the business expediencies. The AO/CIT(A) cannot place himself in the arm-chair of the businessman and usurp his role for deciding what constitutes reasonable level of trade advances that can be given against the purchases. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC) (Pg No.97-99 of PB-I), wherein it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The Hon'ble Court further held that the authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman. The said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of reasonableness of the expenditure laid out for the purpose of business is applicable with equal force in respect of reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances given against purchases. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the action of the AO/CIT(A) in holding that amounts paid upto 150% / 200% of the purchases alone can be considered as reasonable quantum of trade advances in contravention of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above and the same is untenable on facts and in law. Having accepted the factum of purchases and payment of trade advances against the purchases, the AO/CIT(A) could not have imposed an imaginary and artificial limit on the quantum of payments that can be regarded as trade advances by sitting in the arm-chair of the businessman. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the entire amount of payments made against purchases has to be regarded as 'trade advances' without any artificial limitation on the quantum of such trade advances. As a result, the amounts paid to recipient company in excess of 200% of the purchases also have to be regarded as 'trade advances' which are in the nature of commercial transactions only and they cannot be characterized as 'loans or advance' constituting deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) 48 ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 towards deemed dividend is therefore wholly untenable and needs to be deleted.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 187 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana vs Amrik Singh Prop Nexo Products (India) on 29 June, 2016

20. Similar view has been expressed by various Courts in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay), Jamuna Vernekar Vs CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka),CIT Vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H),and CIT Vs Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad). This legal position is further fortified from the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 (Pg No.77 of PB-I), where it has been clarified that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and that such views have attained finality. The CBDT, therefore, stated that it is a settled position that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Though, the Assessing Officer and LD.CIT(A) have taken cognizance of the said circular and applied the same to the appellant's case keeping in view the trading transactions between the appellant company and recipient companies, which resulted in debit balance in the account of the recipient companies at the end of the year, but both authorities have misdirected themselves in holding that payments made to the recipient companies in excess of 150% or 200% of purchases from such company cannot be treated as 'trade advances' in the nature of commercial transactions. The AO has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 150% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly held the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similarly, the LD.CIT(A) has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 200% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly upheld the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In our considered view, the said approach of the AO/CIT(A) is arbitrary and the same is not founded on any settled principle laid down by the Courts or on any stipulation conveyed by the Board through a circular regarding the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. The AO/CIT(A) has not revealed the basis on which they arrived at the threshold of 150%/200% of purchases for accepting the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. In the absence of 47 ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 specification of the relevant basis by the AO/CIT(A), the same is required to be regarded as arbitrary and non-maintainable. Further, having accepted that purchases are being made regularly from the recipient companies and payments in the nature of trade advances are being made to the said companies against the purchases, the AO/CIT(A) has drawn an artificial line for segregating the payments into 'trade advances' which are in the nature of commercial transactions and 'loans or advance' which do not have such commercial character. Such an approach of the AO/CIT(A) is not permissible since the extent to which trade advances are paid is purely a commercial decision which is contingent on the business expediencies. The AO/CIT(A) cannot place himself in the arm-chair of the businessman and usurp his role for deciding what constitutes reasonable level of trade advances that can be given against the purchases. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC) (Pg No.97-99 of PB-I), wherein it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The Hon'ble Court further held that the authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman. The said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of reasonableness of the expenditure laid out for the purpose of business is applicable with equal force in respect of reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances given against purchases. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the action of the AO/CIT(A) in holding that amounts paid upto 150% / 200% of the purchases alone can be considered as reasonable quantum of trade advances in contravention of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above and the same is untenable on facts and in law. Having accepted the factum of purchases and payment of trade advances against the purchases, the AO/CIT(A) could not have imposed an imaginary and artificial limit on the quantum of payments that can be regarded as trade advances by sitting in the arm-chair of the businessman. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the entire amount of payments made against purchases has to be regarded as 'trade advances' without any artificial limitation on the quantum of such trade advances. As a result, the amounts paid to recipient company in excess of 200% of the purchases also have to be regarded as 'trade advances' which are in the nature of commercial transactions only and they cannot be characterized as 'loans or advance' constituting deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) 48 ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 towards deemed dividend is therefore wholly untenable and needs to be deleted.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata vs Mukundray K. Shah on 10 April, 2007

In the opinion of this court, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukundray K. Shah (supra), any payment made by a company in which a shareholder has shareholding exceeding 10 per cent of the voting power to any concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest, would be deemed to be dividend in his hands if any benefit from such transaction has been received by such shareholder. The intention of the legislature is to tax funds ultimately received by a shareholder holding more than 10% voting power in the company, which have been routed through different modes/concerns. What needs to be taxed as deemed dividend is the amount ultimately used for the benefit of the shareholder. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment that the petitioner has received any amount as holder of substantial shares from the loan giver company or the loan receiver company. Therefore, in the absence of any benefit having been received by the petitioner, there was no obligation cast upon him to disclose such transactions."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 91 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nagindas M. Kapadia on 8 December, 1988

20. Similar view has been expressed by various Courts in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay), Jamuna Vernekar Vs CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka),CIT Vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H),and CIT Vs Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad). This legal position is further fortified from the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 (Pg No.77 of PB-I), where it has been clarified that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and that such views have attained finality. The CBDT, therefore, stated that it is a settled position that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Though, the Assessing Officer and LD.CIT(A) have taken cognizance of the said circular and applied the same to the appellant's case keeping in view the trading transactions between the appellant company and recipient companies, which resulted in debit balance in the account of the recipient companies at the end of the year, but both authorities have misdirected themselves in holding that payments made to the recipient companies in excess of 150% or 200% of purchases from such company cannot be treated as 'trade advances' in the nature of commercial transactions. The AO has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 150% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly held the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similarly, the LD.CIT(A) has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 200% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly upheld the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In our considered view, the said approach of the AO/CIT(A) is arbitrary and the same is not founded on any settled principle laid down by the Courts or on any stipulation conveyed by the Board through a circular regarding the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. The AO/CIT(A) has not revealed the basis on which they arrived at the threshold of 150%/200% of purchases for accepting the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. In the absence of 47 ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 specification of the relevant basis by the AO/CIT(A), the same is required to be regarded as arbitrary and non-maintainable. Further, having accepted that purchases are being made regularly from the recipient companies and payments in the nature of trade advances are being made to the said companies against the purchases, the AO/CIT(A) has drawn an artificial line for segregating the payments into 'trade advances' which are in the nature of commercial transactions and 'loans or advance' which do not have such commercial character. Such an approach of the AO/CIT(A) is not permissible since the extent to which trade advances are paid is purely a commercial decision which is contingent on the business expediencies. The AO/CIT(A) cannot place himself in the arm-chair of the businessman and usurp his role for deciding what constitutes reasonable level of trade advances that can be given against the purchases. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC) (Pg No.97-99 of PB-I), wherein it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The Hon'ble Court further held that the authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman. The said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of reasonableness of the expenditure laid out for the purpose of business is applicable with equal force in respect of reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances given against purchases. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the action of the AO/CIT(A) in holding that amounts paid upto 150% / 200% of the purchases alone can be considered as reasonable quantum of trade advances in contravention of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above and the same is untenable on facts and in law. Having accepted the factum of purchases and payment of trade advances against the purchases, the AO/CIT(A) could not have imposed an imaginary and artificial limit on the quantum of payments that can be regarded as trade advances by sitting in the arm-chair of the businessman. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the entire amount of payments made against purchases has to be regarded as 'trade advances' without any artificial limitation on the quantum of such trade advances. As a result, the amounts paid to recipient company in excess of 200% of the purchases also have to be regarded as 'trade advances' which are in the nature of commercial transactions only and they cannot be characterized as 'loans or advance' constituting deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) 48 ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 towards deemed dividend is therefore wholly untenable and needs to be deleted.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 72 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Agra vs M/S Atul Engineering Udyog, Nunihai ... on 26 September, 2014

The business expediency for making huge payments to MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd is revealed by this crucial fact also in addition to the explanation furnished in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, the payments made by the appellant to MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd which are evidently imbued with business expediency cannot be considered to be falling under the ambit of "advance or loans" under section 2(22)(e) so as to constitute deemed dividend. Further, the provisions of deemed dividend are not attracted in the facts of the case for the 49 ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 instant assessment years as the basic ingredient to invoke the said provisions that payments by way of 'advance or loans' have been made by the appellant company to the recipient companies in which Sri. M.S.N.Reddy is the common substantial shareholder, is non- existent. Therefore, in our considered view, the addition made by the AO, to the extent upheld by the CIT(A), towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant for the purpose of levy of dividend distribution tax without the satisfaction of the said basic condition laid down in the section is unwarranted and untenable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 26 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs The India Fruits Limited, Kadiyam on 15 October, 2014

This is evident from the summary of transactions between the appellant company and the recipient companies, i.e., MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd and MSN Organics Pvt Ltd for both assessment years. From the above, it is undisputedly proved that these are trade advances, which arises in the course of carrying out purchases in the normal course of the business and which result in closing debit balance in the account of the recipient company in the books of payer company and thus, these trade advances in the ordinary course of business cannot be regarded as payment of 'loans or advances' to the recipient company, since the same are undeniably in the nature of commercial transactions. It is a settled position of law that trade advances given in the normal course of business on account of trading transactions cannot be treated as 'loans or advances' so as to constitute deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. This legal position is fortified by the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh), where it has been held as under :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next