How many judgments cite CIT v. P.K. Badiani?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. P.K. Badiani (76 ITR 369), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. P.K. Badiani come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 2(22)(e), Section 132, Section 132A, Section 139, Section 142(1).

CIT v. P.K. Badiani

76 ITR 369High Court1970#4787 most cited

What is CIT v. P.K. Badiani authority for?

A payment by a company to an assessee is a loan, and therefore potentially a deemed dividend, only if the company becomes a creditor of the assessee for that amount at the time of payment. If the company is already indebted to the assessee, the payment is merely a repayment of an existing debt.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P.K. Badiani · deemed dividend · section 2(22)(e) · loan · creditor · debtor · accumulated profits · repayment of debt

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 132 Section 132A Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profits section 2(22)deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)compulsory acquisition beneficial owner previous year income from other sources section 143(2)person company transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. P.K. Badiani

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

…agreement dated 15.04.2016 is enclosed as Annexure - IV herein for your honours ready reference in the matter. Further, in this respect in thesaid, it is worth mentioning here the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K.Bhadani (1970) 76 ITR 369 (Bom). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to the effect that "what has to be ascertained is whether the debits are loans, so that they can be deemed as dividends". The Hon'ble court has held "to be treated as a loan, every amount paid must make the company a creditor of the assessee for that amount. If, however…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. AVINASH KNATILAL JAIN, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

…sidered by the AO while finalising the issue under consideration. 03. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K. Badani 76 ITR 369, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide 105 ITR 642 is applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. 04. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete and amend any of the grounds, as per the circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is propr…

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…nor has any been brought to our notice. We may further add that our decision is also in harmony with the law as explained in Walchand & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 598 (Bom.) (where the loan was for a short period of 23 days) and CIT v. P.K. Badiani [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom.) (providing for a notional reduction in the accumulated profits on repayment of loan/advance), also noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra). The assessee has, we may add, placed a number of decisions by the Tribunal on file, to some of which reference was also made during hearing. We have decided the appeal on the basis of the clear pr…

TRILOK PARUMAL MOTIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue

ITA 4542/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyaltrilok Parumal Motiani, 213/214, Kalyandas Udyog Bhavan, Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aahpm3289N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian Respondent By : Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai (For Short ‘Cit(A)’) Dated 30.04.2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 48

…must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. It is agreed by counsel that the answer to the second question must be in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, having regard to the judgment of this court in CIT v. P.K. Badiani [1970] 76 ITR 369 . Accordingly, both questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.” 15. Considering the facts on record, which are not under challenge and relying on the judicial pronouncements as reproduced above, we are of firm view conditions precedent to apply section 2(22)(e) are clearly attracted and amount 9 ITA No. 4542 Mum 201…

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

…de. In the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the statutory fiction created by the section would come into operation at the time of the payment of advance or loan. Similarly, the observations in the case of P.K.Badani (supra)(76 ITR 369)(Bom) would indicate that the accumulated profits should be reduced by the amount of loan or advance, immediately on making such loan or advance. Only if this is done, the subsequent loans or advances can be tested by verifying the accumulated profits on the dates on which they are made. As pointed out in the decision referred above, the repayment…

M/S. DEVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2644/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

…. In the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the statutory fiction created by the section would come into operation at the time of the payment of advance or loan. Similarly, the observations in the case of P.K. Badani (supra) (76 ITR 369) (Bom) would indicate that the accumulated profits should be reduced by the amount of loan or advance, immediately on making such loan or advance. Only if this is done, the subsequent loans or advances can be tested by verifying the accumulated profits on the dates on which they are made. As pointed out in the decision referred above, the repaymen…

GIRISH B. CHAUDHARI, L/O. OF LATE SHRI BHAGWAT N CHAUDHARI,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

ITA 1133/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ssa)A No.80/Pun/2017 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Smt. Mahesh Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar (Central - 1) Vs. Yawat Road, Bhusawal Nashik Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Adkpc7175P Appellant Respondent Shri Girish Bhagwat Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer (Lh Of Late Bhagwat N . Chaudhary) (Central - 1) 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar Vs. Nashik Yawat Road, Bhusawal Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Aalpc0512G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 142(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ABENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SSA)A No.80/PUN/2017 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Smt. Mahesh Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar (Central - 1) Vs. Yawat Road, Bhusawal Nashik Jalgaon 425201 PAN –ADKPC7175P Appellant Respondent Shri Girish Bhagwat Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer (LH of Late Bhagwat N . Chaudhary) (Central - 1) 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar Vs. Nashik Yawat Road, Bhusawal Jalgaon 425201 PAN –AALPC0512G Appellant Respondent IT(SS)A No.53/PUN/2017 (Assessment Year:2012-…

M/S ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds 3

ITA 563/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

DCIT CC 3(1), MUMBAI vs. YOGESH JOGINDERNATH MEHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu KishorFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat (DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1003/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT-CC-3(1), Central बिधम/ Yogesh Jogindernath Mehra Range-3 201, Hare Krishna Presidency Vs. Room NO.1924, Air India Society, North South Road Building, Nariman Point, No.8, JVPO, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAPM6139N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Dr. Yogesh Kamat (DR) Assessee by: Ms. Ritu…

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

…e form of loans/ advances. This clause seeks to suppress this mischief by creating a legal fiction whereby all such loans/advances are deemed to be dividend. It is a well- settled legal principle as decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs P.K. Badiani, 76 ITR 369 that a legal fiction has to be carried to its logical conclusion within the framework of the purpose for which it is created. Further, since this clause Asian Business Connection Private Limited creates an artificial liability, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarulata vs CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) it must be given a strict interpretation. 20. T…

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

…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 para 4.3) is, accordingly, answered in the n…

R.LAKSHMINARAYANAMOORTHY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2783/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Mrs.M.Subashri, JCITFor Respondent: 03.07.2019

Section 2(22)(e)

…d brought the same to tax as the assessee was shareholder and was having controlling interest in the company also. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had followed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K.Badiani reported in 76 ITR 369 (Bom) and upheld the findings of the AO. It was a submission that for the immediately preceding assessment year being the AY 2010- 11, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.3408 & 3409/Mds/2016 for the AY 2010-11 dated 12.04.2017, wherein, it has held the issue against the assessee as follows: “………7. We h…

ITO 9 (1) (1), MUMBAI vs. MANOJ UPADHYAY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed wherein

ITA 5172/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Income Tax Officer - 9(1)(1) Vs. Mr. Manoj Upadhyay Mumbai C/O. Accu Dat Transcription Services Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Linkage House, 6 Marol Co-Op Industrial Estate, Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Income Tax Officer - 9(1)(1) Vs. Mr. Manoj Upadhyay Mumbai C/o. Accu Dat Transcription Services Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Linkage House, 6 Marol Co-op Industrial Estate, Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 PAN/GIR No.AAUPU4335L Appellant) .. Respondent) CO No.18/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :2010-11) Mr. Manoj Upadhyay Vs. Income Tax Officer - 9(1)(1) C/o. Accu Dat Transcription Mumbai Services Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Linkage House, 6 Marol Co-op Industrial Estate, Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 PAN/GIR No.…

TILLA BABA FARID RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 621/ASR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 621/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Kataria (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (D.R.)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)

…dated 19.06.1968. This, in fact, represents trite law and is also the premise for a claim of depreciation (refer: CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli [2011] 330 ITR 16 (P&H); CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anne [1984] 146 ITR 28 (Kar); CIT v. P.K. Badiani [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom)). The non-booking of depreciation in accounts, though essential inasmuch as it cannot be unaccounted, would not in our view be fatal. The first appellate authority ought to have issued specific directions in this regard Tilla Baba Farid Religious & Charitable Society(AY 2012-13) as the assessee’s accounts, which are subject to audit, ought…

PREMIER ESTATE & EQUIPMENTS .LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 633/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13

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

…ssessee received loans from M/s. Bajaj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which have accumulated reserve and surplus, therefore these loans are covered under the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs. P.K. Badiani (1970) (76 ITR 369) (SC). 2.2 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee declared loss of Rs. 51,14,961/- in its return filed on 15-09-2012, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notices u/s 143(2)…

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/s Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) PAN No.:-AAJCS2674N Shri V. Justin-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri…

BHARAT BIR MOHINDRA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 462/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 462/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gangadhara Sastry, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. P. Suresh Rao, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…. In the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the statutory fiction created by the section would come into operation at the time of the payment of advance or loan. Similarly, the observations in the case of P.K. Badani (supra) (76 ITR 369) (Bom) would indicate that the accumulated profits should be reduced by ITA No.462/Mds/2013. :- 19 -: the amount of loan or advance, immediately on making such loan or advance. Only if this is done, the subsequent loans or advances can be tested by verifying the accumulated profits on the dates on which they are made. As pointed out in the decis…

NAMITA V SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. CIT CITY II, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…has any been brought to our notice. We may further add that our decision is also in harmony with the law as explained in Walchand & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 598 (Bom) (where the loan was for a short period of 23 days) and CIT vs. Badiani (P.K.) [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom) (providing for a notional reduction in the accumulated profits on repayment of loan/advance), also noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra). The assessee has, we may add, placed a number of decisions by the Tribunal on file, to some of which reference was also made during hearing. We have decided the appeal on the basis of the clear pro…

MOHIT KAMBOJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3366/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 2(22)(e)

…gard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of MAIPO India Limited (2008)(24 SOT 42). By placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K.Badani Vs. CIT (1970)(76 ITR 369), the assessee submitted that the deemed dividend, if any, assessed in the earlier years should be excluded while computing accumulated profits for the current year. The Ld CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee and accordingly directed the AO (a) to exclude share premium account balance from the computation of accumulated profits and acc…

MOHIT KAMBOJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3365/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 2(22)(e)

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2