CIT v. Narasimhan

118 ITR 60Reported decision#18784 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Narasimhan

Dr. L.S. Ravi Prakash, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 30/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 78

…profits liable to tax as income under the Act. (c) Hence the assessee is wrong in contending that the deemed dividend, which was not assessed earlier, is required to be deducted from the accumulated profits. In the case of CIT Vs. G.Narasimhan (Decd) (1979)(118 ITR 60), it was held that the loans advanced in earlier years and deemed to be dividend u/s 2(22)(e) have to be deducted. (d) As per clause (iii) of sec. 2(22)(e), the dividend does not include the amount paid by the company as dividend and which was set off by the company against the amount previously paid by it and which was treated as dividend u/s 2(…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Gurbinder Singh, Chennai

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…le to the case of the assessee because the assessees had not produced any evidence for furnishing personal guarantees to the Companies. Similarly the decision rendered by the Hon”ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case CIT Vs. Narasimhan reported in 118 ITR 60, wherein it was held that computation of deemed dividend is to be made on the basis of the companies accumulated profits on each day a loan or advance to the assessee is made (in excess of the loan given by the Director) after setting of the payments towards the loans given by the Directors, cited by the assessee, was held to be not applicable to…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Harinder Singh, Chennai

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1318/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…le to the case of the assessee because the assessees had not produced any evidence for furnishing personal guarantees to the Companies. Similarly the decision rendered by the Hon”ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case CIT Vs. Narasimhan reported in 118 ITR 60, wherein it was held that computation of deemed dividend is to be made on the basis of the companies accumulated profits on each day a loan or advance to the assessee is made (in excess of the loan given by the Director) after setting of the payments towards the loans given by the Directors, cited by the assessee, was held to be not applicable to…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Harbinder Singh, Chennai

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1317/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…le to the case of the assessee because the assessees had not produced any evidence for furnishing personal guarantees to the Companies. Similarly the decision rendered by the Hon”ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case CIT Vs. Narasimhan reported in 118 ITR 60, wherein it was held that computation of deemed dividend is to be made on the basis of the companies accumulated profits on each day a loan or advance to the assessee is made (in excess of the loan given by the Director) after setting of the payments towards the loans given by the Directors, cited by the assessee, was held to be not applicable to…