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#4713 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 366,314 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 9(1), Mumbai vs. Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 6321/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Chand, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 80H

…ditor, constitutes advance [MD. Jindal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 64 ITR 28 (Cal)] and hence, the payments made even in a running account when the payee has a debit balance all along are hit by section 2(22)(e). [Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K.Badiani 76 ITR 369 (Bom)].” 10. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for Asst. Year 2004-05 in ITA No.2012/Mum/2010 dated 07.01.2011 wherein Tribunal has following the coordinate Bench decision in assessee’s own case for Asst. Year 2002-03 has decided the issue in assessee’…

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Chand, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 80H

Taurian Engineering P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3129/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 3129/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Taurian Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Jt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 302-A, Poonam Chamberes, (Osd)-4(3), फनधभ/ 3Rd Floor, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400018 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcm8782H (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri J P Bairagra प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri R A Dhyani सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 08.03.2016 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4.2.2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Upholding Of The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,09,75,000/- Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani

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

…Bombay Oil Industries Ltd V/s DCIT (2009) 28 SOT 383(Mum); c) CIT V/s Ambassador Travells (P) Ltd ((2009) 318 ITR 376) (Del); d) NH Securities Ltd V/s DCIT (2007) 11 SOT 302 (Mumba); e) CIT V/s Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462(Del); f) CIT V/s P K Badiani (1970) 76 ITR 369) (Bom); g) Anilkumar Agarwal V/s ITO (2011)138 TTJ 175) Mum); and h) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd V/s CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363(SC) 5. Per contra the ld DR relied heavily on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were clearly applicable and were rightly invoked by the AO. The ld DR argued…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Vasanji A Mamania, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objection filed by the assesee become otiose

ITA 6171/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.6171/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम/ The Acit-19(3), Vasanji A Mamania, Mumbai 301, Mangal Swagat, Vs. Of Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 C.O. No. 134/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No.6171/Mum/2012) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम/ Vasanji A Mamania, The Acit-19(3), 301, Mangal Swagat, Mumbai Vs. Of Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aampm 4503C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri Shridhar E ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :23.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assesee Are Directed Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 30, Mumbai Dated 6.7.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 Ita. No. 6171/M/12 & C.O No. 134/M/14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shridhar E

Section 2(22)(e)

…ble Supreme Court heavily relied upon by the AO. 8.1. Let us first understand the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Badiani (supra). In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 76 ITR 369. The issue before the Hon’ble Court was whether the development rebate was deductible from the assessable profit of the company while ascertaining the profit of the company in the commercial sense. The main contention before the Hon’ble Court was 5 ITA. No. 6171/M/12 & C.O No. 134/M/14 that the development rebate was in the nature of a depreciat…

ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Legal Heirs of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 698/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil T. Vankawala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar

Section 50Section 54E

…t of depletion of capital, would be income, both in economic and accounting theory. The charge of depreciation, thus, has a sound basis thereto, well accepted in taxing statutes. Reference in this regard be made to the decisions in CIT vs. Badiani (PK) [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom) and CIT vs. Society of Sister of St. Anne p1984] 146 ITR 28 (Kar), explaining the rationale of deprecation on a depreciable asset. It is for this reason that the WDV of the relevant (block of) asset, representing its un-depreciated or the unutilized life/value, is taken as its cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gai…