CIT v. K. Srinivasan

50 ITR 788High Court1963#8675 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Srinivasan

INTERNATIONAL CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…owing judgements in support of his claim: (a) ANZ Reality (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2009) 120 TTJ 0142 (Jaipur Tribunal) (b) Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. ITO (2002) 121 Taxman 367 (c) M D Jindal Vs. CIT (1987) 164 ITR 28 (Cal) (d) CIT vs. K. Srinivasan (1963) 50 ITR 788 (Mad) (e) Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal) (f) M/s. Mirik Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT, Kolkata) (g) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P) Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (Del) 250 (h) CIT vs. Madurai Chettiyar Karthikeyan (2014) 89 CCH 145 (Chennai HC). 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the findings…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI ANUMOD SHARMA, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6892/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6892/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Shri Anumod Sharma, Tax, Central Circle-16, D-305A, Laburnum Apartment, New Delhi-110055 Sushant Lok, Sector-28, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amyps5587L Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…ersons by M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the assessee also came under the purview of deemed dividend. The AO placed reliance on the following judgments: " Walchand & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1975) 100 ITR 598(Bom) 3 Anumod Sharma " CIT vs. K. Shrinavasan 50 ITR 788 " CIT vs. P. Sarada 154ITR 387 (1985) (Mad) " MD Jindal vs. CIT 164 1TR 028 (Cal) (1987) " Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (1977)(SC) " Rajesh P. Ved vs. AC1T 001 ITR 275 (ITAT Mumbai) (2010) " Ms. Sarada P vs. CIT 229 ITR 444(SC) (1998) 6. During the arguments before us, the ld. DR argued that the trifurcation of the total amount into three d…

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…d, thus, as income in the hands of the payee share-holder, is therefore of no consequence. As explained by the Apex Court it is this presumption juris et de jure which forms the foundation of the statutory fiction. The decisions in CIT v. K. Srinivasan [1963] 50 ITR 788 (Mad); CIT v. P.K. Badiani [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom); and Walchand & Co. Ltd. (supra) were, besides K.M.S. Lakshmana Aiyer (supra), also noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra). The Hon’ble Court also drew on its’ decision in Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri v. AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC), also relied upon before it. The first question afore-stated (refer…

VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 783/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…n the entire conspectus of the case, the receipt from H Ltd. was in the nature of share application money. It cannot be construed loan or advance. As such, the case of the assessee falls beyond the ken of s. 2(22)(e).---" 1.4 In CIT v/s Srinivasan (K) (1963) 50 ITR 788 (Mad HC) has defined that “advances means something which is due to a person but which is paid to him ahead of the time when it is due to be paid”. 2. Application on the facts of the present case: 2.1 Applying the above principles in the facts of the present case, the following important feature emerges: 1. There appears frequent receiving and…

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 118/BANG/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…e taken into consideration in respect of the payment made by the BBPL on behalf of the assessee which clearly falls under the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Srinivasan 50 ITR 788 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that an advance, loan, any payment on behalf of shareholder or any benefit for individual shareholder are falling in the category of loan and advance as per Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. He has further contended that the Hon'ble High Court has specifically observed that the income tax payable by…

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…es within the meaning of Section 2[6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 7 of 37 12. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee furthe…