CIT v. V. Damodaran

121 ITR 572Supreme Court of India1980#12076 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. V. Damodaran

Sms Tolls and Developers, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

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

…n is required to be made in the case of the assessee under section 2(22)(e), the same must be restricted to ` 4,79,825. In support of the argument, the learned Counsel relied on the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v/s Damodharan, [1980] 121 ITR 572 (SC) and in the Co–ordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal, Vishakapatnam Bench, in P. Satya Prasad v/s ITO [2013] 141 ITD 403]. 5. However, the submissions of the assessee were not considered properly, and the Assessing Officer calculated proportionate profit upto the date of 4 SMS Tolls and Developers Ltd. advances of ` 2,64,51,100, and added…

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

…not to wait for determination of income at the close of the year”. The Hon’ble Tribunal has expressed the above said view, when it was pointed out to it by the counsel for the assessee that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.Damodaran (1980)(121 ITR 572) has held that the accumulated profits shall not include current year’s profit. Finally the Tribunal summarized the principles of sec. 2(22)(e) as under:- (i) That for purposes of s. 2(22)(e), the accumulated profits are to be worked out upto the date of each payment/advancement of loan. (ii) That there is a distinction between the “accumulated…

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)

…ude that accumulated profit does not include current year’s business profit. 12. The Ld A.R submitted that the expression “accumulated profit” was not defined in the 1922 Act. Hence the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of CIT vs. V Damodaran (1980)(121 ITR 572) in the context of sec.2(6A)(e) of 1922 Act (equivalent to sec.2(22)(e) of the present Act) held that the accumulated profit does not include current year’s profit. He submitted that the Explanation 2 to sec. 2(22) of the Act defines the expression “accumulated profits” as under:- “Explanation 2.-- The expression" accumulated profits" in sub- cla…

Shri Varjinder Singh Chhabra, Indore vs. DCIT 1 (1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 283/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Varjinder Singh Chhabra Dcit-1(1) 1, Near Asharamji Ka Indore बनाम/ Ashram Vs. Khandwa Road Vill. Limbodi Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Acjpc6685J Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-5(1) Varjinder Singh Chhabra Indore 1, Near Asharamji Ka Ashram बनाम/ Khandwa Road Vs. Vill. Limbodi Indore (Appellant) (Revenue )

Section 2Section 234BSection 249(4)(a)

…the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of P. Satya Prasad Vs. ITO in ITA No.293/Vizag/2012 (supra). Further reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. V. Damodaran 121 ITR 572, wherein the Hon'ble apex court has held as under: [ITA No.283/Ind/2018 & ITA No.484/Ind/2013] [Shri Varjinder Singh, Chhabra, Indore] 14. The reliance is also placed on the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Shri Abhishek Lath Vs. ITO (2013) 12 TMI 903, wherein the Tribunal has held that addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot…

The DCIT, 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Varjinder Singh Chhabra, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 484/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Section 2Section 234BSection 249(4)(a)

Lauren Software P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.S.Mathuria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, &

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

…y, all the conditions as envisaged by Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were satisfied and thus, justified the addition. Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of assessee by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIV Vs. V.Damodaran (1980)[121 ITR 572] (SC) and thus, directed the AO to consider accumulated profit as on 01-04- 2000 for the purpose of deemed dividend and accordingly directed the AO to exclude Rs.17,29,108/- profits during the year from the accumulated profit and thus, directed the AO to sustain : 3 : ITA Nos. 01 & 02/Mum/2017 the addition equivalent to Rs.50,78,658/- by holdin…

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)

…made an argument that accumulated profit shall not include current year profit. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the decision of Vizag Bench and Mumbai Bench cited (supa). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. Damodaran, 121 ITR 572 that accumulated profit shall not include current year’s profit. So as pointed out by the ld. Authorised Representative, this was considered by the Vizag Bench of the Tribunal in the case of P. Satya Prasad vs. ITO (141 ITD 403) and observed that for purposes of s. 2(22)(e), the accumulated profits are to be worked out up to the date of each p…

Advantage Moti (India) P.Ltd ( Now Known As Haribhakti Moti India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7379/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.7379/M/2012 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Bangar

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

…surplus’ was to the extent of Rs. 65,36,884/-. Thus, no addition on account of deemed dividend can be made. In support of his contention, he strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. Damodaran reported in [1980] 121 ITR 572 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that accumulated profits will not include current profits. Thus, on merits also no addition can be made. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO did not examine the issue regarding the applicability of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of…