Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-I v. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar

109 ITR 508High Court1977#10995 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(22)(e)Section 46A

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-I v. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. REJI ABRAHAM, CHENNAI

In the result, CO of the assessee vide CO-53/Chny/2024 is dismissed

ITA 1762/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita-1762 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Reji Abraham, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) No.113, Janapriya Crest, Chennai. Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Reji Abraham, Assistant Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janapriya Crest, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) Pantheon Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue For Ay-2011-12 & Ay-2011-12 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 2(22)

…so attract the provisions of Sec.2(22)(3). The same is also supported by the Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of CIT V/s Mukundaray K.Sha 2007 290 ITR 433(SC) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s L.Alagusundaram Chettiyar [1977] 109 ITR 508(Mds.). The assessee should have offered Rs.16.5 Crs as deemed dividend as te accumulated profits in the company, M/s.Aban Investments Ltd. was Rs.478623697/-, but the assessee has not offered the same for taxation. Page - 11 - of 13 ITA No.1762 & CO53/Chny/2024 Based on the strength of the new material facts unearthed during the course assessm…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 vs. M/S WIG INVESTMENT

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…taxable in the hands of the appellant firm; however, the same is chargeable to tax in the hands of the shareholders. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB), CIT Vs. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar (1977) 109 ITR 508 (Mad) and Ankitech P. Ltd, 340 ITR 14 (Del). Accordingly, the deemed dividend of Rs.21,08,38,530/- is hereby deleted. Consequential relief shall be given by the AO. The AO may consider taking remedial action as per law in assessing the deemed dividend of Rs.21,08,38,530/- in relevant AY in the hands of registered & beneficial shareholders; M…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI गणेशन,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" "ी एन एन एन.आर एन आर आर.एस आर एस एस. गणेशन एस गणेशन गणेशन "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1699/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/s. Aban Ventures Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Rd, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Chennai – 34. PAN: AACCA4266H (अपीलाथ"/A…

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

DR. SUNIL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5480/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40

…profits by way of loan to one of its shareholders so as to avoid payment of tax on accumulated profits. This was the main reason for enacting Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-I v. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar (1977) 109 ITR 508, the Madras High Court held that the word "payment" in the said section means the act of paying and, therefore, in that case it was held that payment by the company to Karuppiah Chettiar was for the benefit of the assessee, the Managing Director of the company, L. Alagusundaram Chettiar, and was therefore assessable as dividend in the hands of th…

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…ng the said profits by way of loan to one of its shareholders so as to avoid payment of tax on accumulated profits. This was the main reason for enacting s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 10. In the case of CIT vs. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar 1977 CTR (Mad) 410 : (1977) 109 ITR 508 (Mad), the Madras High Court held that the word "payment" in the said section means the act of paying and, therefore, in that case it was held that payment by the company to Karuppiah Chettiar was for the benefit of the assessee, the managing director of the company, L. Alagusundaram Chettiar, and was therefore assessable as dividend in the hands…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINDHU HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2766/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR

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

…Miss P. Sarada vs. CIT – 96 Taxman 11 (SC) (vi) Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT – 41 ITR 275 (SC) 8 ITA No.2766/Del./2012 (vii) CIT vs. P.K. Abubucker – 135 Taxman 77 (Mad.) (viii) Mr. Ravindra D. Amin vs. CIT – 208 ITR 815 (Guj.) (ix) L. Alagusundaram Chettiar – 109 ITR 508 (Mad.) (x) Walchand & Co. Ltd. – 100 ITR 598 (Bom.) (xi) In view of these submissions, ld. DR pleaded that the orders of the CIT(A) be set aside on this issue and the appeal of the department be allowed. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT (A) and for the sake of clarity, the same are reproduced hereun…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUBRATA ROY

ITA/398/2010HC Delhi17 Mar 2015

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA No.398/2010 & WP(C) No.1162/2012 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On: 17.03.2015 + ITA No.398/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan & Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates. Versus SUBRATA ROY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Satyen Sethi & Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. AND + WP(C) 1162/2012 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan & Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates. Versus…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. MUKUNDRAY K.SHAH

The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-001873-001873 - 2007Supreme Court10 Apr 2007

For Respondent: Mukundray K. Shah

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 2(22)(e)

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1873 of 2007 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata RESPONDENT: Mukundray K. Shah DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2007 BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1873 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.13570 of 2006) KAPADIA, J. Leave granted. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the Department: whether payments made by M. K. Shah Exports Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ’MKSEPL’) during the Accounting Year ending 31.3.2000 (Assessment Year 2000-01) amo…