CIT v. Smt. Savithri Sam

236 ITR 1003High Court#20101 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44AB Section 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Savithri Sam

DEEPTTI ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-7 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

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

…ournal entry and there is no actual transfer of funds from lender AIPL to shareholder assessee. Such transfer by way of journal entry has been held to be outside the scope of Section 2(22)(e) of the present Act as held in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Savitri Sam, 236 ITR 1003 (Mad.). The Hon’ble High Court observed therein that the expression ‘payment’ in Section 2(22)(e) cannot be equated with transfer entry amounting to payment. Such act would tantamount to introducing another fiction in the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) by construing even a transfer entry I.T.A. No.1570/Del/2019 6 amounting to payment. 9. Sect…

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)

…he setting in which the said clause (e) of section 2(6A) occurs, it was not possible to say that the payment contemplated would include a notional payment by way of book entries. 6.8 Similarly, the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Savithiri Sam (236 ITR 1003) has held that by way 10 A.Y.2012-13 of creating a fiction, dividend has been made to include payments of the nature of loan and advance and therefore, creating another fiction in respect of the words “payment by the company” to construe that even a transfer entry amounts to actual payment, cannot be accepted. 6.9 In view of the aforesaid disc…

DR. MANJU DANG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6421/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 2(22)(e)

…ntention on behalf of the assessee has been that there was no flow of money from DDLPL to the appellant and transfer was by way of book entry, hence, provisions of section 2(22)(e) is not applicable as held in: (i). CIT vs. Smt. Savithri Sam 144 CTR 17 (Mad)/ 236 ITR 1003 (Mad) (ii). ACIT vs. Lakshmi Kutty Narayan 112 TTJ 396 (Cochin) It is also submitted that ULFPL entered into agreement with the real owners for the purchase of property and paid an aggregate amount of Rs. 5 crores too, and if on the strength of such arrangement, they entered into agreement to lease out the property to be acquired, there is not…

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. DINA SUDHIR SHAH, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4184/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Uday B JakkeFor Respondent: Dr.P.Daniel

Section 2(22)(e)

…irement of there being an advance or loan was not fulfilled. The finding that there was no advance or loan was a pure finding of fact which did not give rise to any substantial question of law. 2.4.16 It was held by the Hon'ble High Court in Smt. Savithri Sam 236 ITR 1003 (Mad) that the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the purpose of computation of Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)(e), there must be "actual payment of money" i.e. actual payment from company to the shareholder and not constructive. 12 2.4.17 From the ratio decidendi emerging from the above judgement when applied to the facts of the appellant's…