M.D. Jindal v. CIT

164 ITR 28High Court1987#16900 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 194 Section 1961 Section 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing M.D. Jindal v. CIT

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं सु"ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of Income No.9, Ninth Floor, Club House Road, Vs. Tax, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Corporate Circle-1(1), PAN: AAGCA 5275J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCA ()थ" की ओर से /Re…

International Creations Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…by CIT(A). Apart from this, Ld. AR relied on following judgements in support of his claim: (a) ANZ Reality (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2009) 120 TTJ 0142 (Jaipur Tribunal) (b) Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. ITO (2002) 121 Taxman 367 (c) M D Jindal Vs. CIT (1987) 164 ITR 28 (Cal) (d) CIT vs. K. Srinivasan (1963) 50 ITR 788 (Mad) (e) Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal) (f) M/s. Mirik Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT, Kolkata) (g) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P) Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (Del) 250 (h) CIT vs. Madurai Chettiyar Karthikeyan (2014) 89 CCH 145 (Chennai HC). 8. On the other hand,…

M/S Loesche India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 295/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 17(2)(iv)Section 37Section 37(1)

…of only the relatives of key managerial persons and their distant family members. Relying of certain case laws such as the Madras High Court decision in India Express Newspapers (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. (238 ITR 070) and Calcutta High Court decision in MD Jindial (164 ITR 28), the AO was of the view that he was entitled to lift the veil of corporate entity in order to ascertain the actual intention. He distinguished the case law of Bombay High Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., on which reliance was placed by the appellant, since the instant benefit was not for achieving the purpose of corporate social responsibility…

Mohammed Ahmed, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1659/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/S. Acit, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan No.Acxpa 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…he case of CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah in 290 ITR 433 (SC); in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam and Ors. Vs. CIT , wherein the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in 82 ITR 485 was affirmed and jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.D. Jindal v. CIT 164 ITR 28 (Cal); wherein the head note of the said decision is as under:- “Dividend – deemed Dividend – Advance to shareholder – Scope of Sec. 2(22)(e) – Assessee and his wife only directors of company dealing in iron materials – Flats under construction by assessee and his wife – Agreement with company for sale of flats in 1965 – Completion of construction…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Subrata Roy

ITA/398/2010HC Delhi17 Mar 2015

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…at the firm was only a conduit for the loan and that the firm’s loan to the assessee had its roots in the credit balance of SISICOL. Reliance was placed in this regard upon T. Sundaram Chettiar v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 287 (Mad) and M. D. Jindal v. CIT [1987] 164 ITR 28 (Cal). It was held that the firm did not have adequate resources and its advance to the assessee was not an independent transaction. Reference was made to the balance-sheet of the firm as on March 31, 1992, which showed that the partner's capital was only `40,000/-. The learned Accountant Member concluded that 2015:DHC:2533-DB ITA No.398…