CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada

367 ITR 78High Court2014#4512 most cited

What is CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada authority for?

Provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not attracted where the assessee had a running account with a company and was advancing money to it, as the provision was intended to prevent the misuse of funds by taking them out of the company as loan advances instead of dividends.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loan advance · running account · company funds · business expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 10(2A)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 2(22)(e)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)business expediencybeneficial ownercommercial expediencysection 68previous yeartransferprescribedcompany

Judgments citing CIT v. Suraj Dev Dada

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…company are in the nature of the current account, therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable to the case. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada 367 ITR 78 in which it has been held that company having running account with the shareholder and no evidence or intent to evade taxes, loan could not treated as a deemed dividend. 13. The learned DR on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, in the ligh…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Tulsiani Builders & Textiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4315/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Singh & Ms. Apurva ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28

…h Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Fruits Ltd.(2014) 369 ITR Assessment Year: 2008-09 0581 (AP) and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suraj Dev Dada (2014) 367 ITR 78 (P&H) 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in question mainly on the ground that since, M/s Amline Textile Pvt. Ltd. is the subsidiary of the assessee company and since the entire advance was made in the course of business operation, the same does not under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 9. So, in our considered opinion, the…

ITO 20(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanjay B Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7317/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 7317/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 The Ito-20(3)(2), Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 546, Top Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Bhupendra Villa, Jam-E-Jamshed Road,Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 C.O. No. 91/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 7317/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Sanjay B. Sanghvi, The Ito-20(3)(2), बनाम/ 546, Top Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bhupendra Villa, Mumbai-400 012 Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagps 5966H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri J.Saravanan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri M.Subramanian

For Appellant: Shri J.SaravananFor Respondent: Shri M.Subramanian
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…hase and sale of shares and therefore the provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e) have no application. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT Vs Parle Plastics Ltd and Another (332 ITR 63) (Bom) and 4 C.O. No. 91/M/2016 in the case of CIT Vs Suraj Dev Dada (367 ITR 78) (P&H) he submits that when the assessee has running account with the company, the provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e) are not attracted unless it is shown that the assessee was misusing funds by taking it out from the company by way of loan or advances instead of dividends to avoid paying taxes by the company. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and p…