Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.41 seconds)Cit vs Hotel Hilltop on 17 March, 2008
In the light of above discussions, we find that the CIT(A) followed the
one possible view in favour of the assessee following the judgement of the
Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Hilltop and the
order of I.T.A.T. Special Bench, Bombay in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Baumik
Colour Pvt. Ltd. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the above
discussions, we confirm the order of the CIT(A)."
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ankitech Pvt Ltd. on 11 May, 2011
9. From the above discussion, we have noticed that there are two
possible views and interpretation on the issue is under consideration.
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt.
Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel
Hilltop (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.
Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra) decided the issue in favour of the assessee but in
subsequent judgement Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.
National Travel Services (supra) has decided the issue against the assessee
and in favour of the Revenue.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Adarsh Travel Bus Service, ... on 22 July, 2010
9. From the above discussion, we have noticed that there are two
possible views and interpretation on the issue is under consideration.
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt.
Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel
Hilltop (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.
Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra) decided the issue in favour of the assessee but in
subsequent judgement Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.
National Travel Services (supra) has decided the issue against the assessee
and in favour of the Revenue.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Universal Medicare Private Limited on 22 March, 2010
9. From the above discussion, we have noticed that there are two
possible views and interpretation on the issue is under consideration.
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt.
Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel
Hilltop (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.
Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra) decided the issue in favour of the assessee but in
subsequent judgement Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.
National Travel Services (supra) has decided the issue against the assessee
and in favour of the Revenue.
Section 50 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd., India ... on 21 September, 1994
CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing
(P) Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (Del) 250 : (2010) 318 ITR 476 (Del), following CIT vs.
Raj Kumar (2009) 23 DTR (Del.) 304 : (2009) 181 Taxman 155 (Del). The
provision of section 2(22)(e)(ii) is basically in the nature of an Explanation. That
cannot however, have bearing on interpretation of the main provision of section
2(22)(e) and once it is held that the business transactions do not fall within section
2(22)(e), one need not to go further to section 2(22)(e)(ii). The provision of
section 2(22)(e)(ii) gives an example only of one of the situations where the
loan/advance will not be treated as a deemed dividend, but that's all. The same
cannot be expanded further to take away the basic meaning, intent and purport of
the main part of section 2(22)(e). This interpretation is in accordance with the
legislative intention of introducing section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the amounts
advanced for business transaction between the parties, was not such to fall within
the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).