CIT v. Urmila Ramesh

230 ITR 422Supreme Court of India1998#13785 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 41(2)Section 50Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(c)Section 250Section 260Section 263
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(22)profits and gains of business or professionfair market valuecommissioner (appeals)transferprescribedbusinesspersoncompanysection 14indiatotal income

Judgments citing CIT v. Urmila Ramesh

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Pvr Tourist Home, Cochin

ITA 428/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48Section 50Section 50(1)Section 50A

…of the Act. In other words, provisions of both section 45(4) and section 50 cannot be applied to the same amount. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Urmila Ramesh [1998] 230 ITR 422 (SC) rendered in the context of provisions of section 41(2) read with provisions of section 2(22)(c) of the Act. 11 PVT Tourist Home 14. In the above terms, the appeal filed by Revenue stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st March, 2025. (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st March, 2025 n.p. Copy to:…

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 782/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(2)Section 50

…loss falls within the purview of section 50 as well. As the provisions of section 41 (2) and section 50 coexist, an assessee can take the benefit of section 41 (2) which is more beneficial to him. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Urmila Ramesh (1998) 230 ITR 422 (SC), has held that both section 41 (2) and section 50 of the Act cannot apply to the same amount. 10. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities.The Ld. DR was unable to bring any contrary judgement to refute the argument of the Ld.AR 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the doc…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…t of ABFL states that the value of Shares as per Rule 11UA comes to Rs. 84.10. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the same. 108. Without prejudice The Appellant submits that accumulated profits needs to be derived from the financials- CIT Vs. Urmila Ramesh (230 ITR 422) (SC) (Para 13, Pg. 598, Pg. 591-601 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). 109. The Appellant submits that Valuation date should be taken as the Board meeting date of 11.8.16 when the Swap ratio was determined, agreed and decided. All activities thereafter were formalities to implement the decision. Shareholders approved scheme in April 2017, the Hon‘b…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…t of ABFL states that the value of Shares as per Rule 11UA comes to Rs. 84.10. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the same. 108. Without prejudice The Appellant submits that accumulated profits needs to be derived from the financials- CIT Vs. Urmila Ramesh (230 ITR 422) (SC) (Para 13, Pg. 598, Pg. 591-601 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). 109. The Appellant submits that Valuation date should be taken as the Board meeting date of 11.8.16 when the Swap ratio was determined, agreed and decided. All activities thereafter were formalities to implement the decision. Shareholders approved scheme in April 2017, the Hon‘b…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Bhagwati Coal Movers (P) Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3394/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Gupta, CA
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56

…its" should be construed in the commercial sense and not assessable or taxable profits liable to tax under 1922 Act. Development rebate debited to profit and loss account and taken to reserve would amount to accumulated profits. • CIT v. Urmila Ramesh [1998] 230 ITR 422 ITO held that the amount distributed on liquidation of company was the accumulated profits of the Company and assessable as I.T.A. No.3394/Del/2017 12 "deemed dividend" u/s. 2(22) of Income-tax Act, 1961. • Court held that the amount received was not assessable because the Liquidator sold assets for less than their purchase price. "Profits" are…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Aban Ventures Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1699/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 05.07.2018For Respondent: Mr.AR .V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)Section 68

…) .” Further the plea of the Ld.AR that M/s. Tuticorin Power Company Ltd., has only capital reserve and therefore provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked is erroneous. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT Vs. Urmila Ramesh reported in 230 ITR 422, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Section 2(22) has used the expression ‘accumulated profits’ whether capitalized or not. This expression tends to show that under section 2(22) it is only the distribution of the accumulated profits which are deemed to be dividends in the hands of the shareholders. By using the expression ‘whether capital…

Reji Abraham, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1132/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 05.07.2018For Respondent: Mr.AR .V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)Section 68

…) .” Further the plea of the Ld.AR that M/s. Tuticorin Power Company Ltd., has only capital reserve and therefore provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked is erroneous. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT Vs. Urmila Ramesh reported in 230 ITR 422, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Section 2(22) has used the expression ‘accumulated profits’ whether capitalized or not. This expression tends to show that under section 2(22) it is only the distribution of the accumulated profits which are deemed to be dividends in the hands of the shareholders. By using the expression ‘whether capital…

CIT v. Urmila Ramesh (230 ITR 422) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax