CIT v. Nalin Behari Lall Singha

74 ITR 849Supreme Court of India1969#21341 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Nalin Behari Lall Singha

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5877/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh,Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 8

…erred appeal against the order of the first appellate authority, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITANo.4601/Del/2013 by order dated 30.4.2015, while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nalin Behari Lal Singh (1969) 74 ITR 849 (SC) and decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (AT)146 (Mum), upheld the finding of the first appellate authority and dismissed the appeal. He further submitted that since the fundamental facts permeating all through these years remain the same, the issue is squarely covered by t…

ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata vs. Shri Manoj Murarka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…on distribution, be liable to be so taxed as dividend under Section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In Tea Estate India P. Ltd. v. CIT [1976] (03 ITR 785, the Supreme Court had reiterated this position. Again, in CIT v. Nalin Behari Lall Singha [1969] 74 ITR 849, the Supreme Court held as follows (at p. 852) : "There is no warrant for the view expressed by the Tribunal that the definition of 'dividend' only includes deemed dividend. To hold that the capital gains within the excepted period are not part of the accumulated profits for the purpose of the definition under Section 2(6A) and a distributive sha…

Bloom Packaging P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Precy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita Menon, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

…roposition that the provisions of section 2(22) constitutes “deemed dividend” and must receive a „strict interpretation‟ [CIT vs Martin Burn Ltd (136 ITR 805) (Cal)]. The judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Nalin Behari Lall Singha [1969] 74 ITR 849 (SC) is relevant for the proposition that every receipt by the shareholder is not a „dividend‟. The expression “accumulated profits” appearing in the above clause-(a) to section 2(22) of the Act is required to be understood in a sense of „commercial profits‟, PK Badiani v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 642 (SC). It is also a settled proposition in law that t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Siegwerk India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR

Section 143Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…he total sum distributed by a company being a share of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders, is not impressed with the character of the profits from which it reaches the hands of the shareholders - CIT v Nalin Behari Lall Singha (1969) 74 ITR 849 (SC). The word 'profits' occurring in section 2(22) means profits in the commercial sense, that is to say the profits made by the company in the real and true sense of the term - P.K. Badiani v CIT (1976) 105 ITR 642 (SC) From a plain reading of Section 2(22)(e) it is seen that the payments made by the appellant to the three group concerns does…