ACIT v. Smt. G. Sreevidya

138 ITD 427Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#16690 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Smt. G. Sreevidya

ITO, Ward-1, Kurnool vs. S.V. Mohan Reddy, Kurnool

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…sessee is neither a loan nor an advance, it is a routine transaction which the company generally carries on and in the normal sense the assessee is a debtor to the company. In this connection, he relied on the following cases: 1. ACIT Vs. G. Sreevidhya [2012] 138 ITD 427 2. Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT, [2011] 203 Taxman 110/15 2.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO observed that the facts of the cases quoted by the assessee are totally different from the facts of the assessee’s case, as in the present case, the assessee received loans from the company frequently and the transaction invol…

Varusai Mohamed, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 662/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA

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

…of the assessee was that Sec.2(22) (e) of the Act could not be applied on the amounts received by him as advance from the Company. Assessee also relied ITA No.662 /Mds/2017. :- 3 -: on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of CIT vs. G. Sreevidya, 138 ITD 427 and that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT, 338 ITR 538. 4. However, ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the above reply. According to him, the Company had a turnover of "8,57,12,270/- during the relevant previous year. As per the ld. Assessing Officer the Company though it was granted credit facilitie…

Fasulunnisa, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 661/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA

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

…of the assessee was that Sec.2(22) (e) of the Act could not be applied on the amounts received by her as advance from the Company. Assessee also relied ITA No.661 /Mds/2017. :- 3 -: on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of CIT vs. G. Sreevidya, 138 ITD 427 and that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT, 338 ITR 538. 4. However, ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the above reply. According to him, the Company had a turnover of "8,57,12,270/- during the relevant previous year. As per the ld. Assessing Officer the Company though It was granted credit facilitie…

L.Suryanarayanamoorthy, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…f a consideration which was beneficial to a company received from such share holder, such advance or loan could not be said to be deemed dividend. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Smt. G. Sreevidya (2012) 138 ITD 427. As per the ld. Authorised Representative in the above decision, Co- ordinate Bench had held that every payment made by a company to its shareholder could be loan/advance, would not be considered as deemed dividend when the shareholder concerned had offered personal guarantee and collateral security for the benefit of the company. Reliance was…

Shrinivasa A. Pawar, Mumbai vs. ACIT ., Range-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6148/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6148/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 A N D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3746/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Mr. Shrinivas A. Pawar, The Acit, Range 7(2), बनाम/ 53, Dutta Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Vijay Manjrekar Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Gokhale Road (North), Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Afwpp 3313A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Pankaj R. Toprani अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.M. Makwana

For Respondent: Shri G.M. Makwana

Section 2(22)(e)

…y the assessee, assessee’s funds got depleted and therefore the assessee had to borrow money from the said company. In support of this contention, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Smt. G. Sreevidya 138 ITD 427. 11. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. 12. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts in issue and the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. There is no dispute that the SAP Holding & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., has lended money to the 5 ITA. Nos.6148/M/2011 & 3746/M/12 assessee. There is also…