How many judgments cite Miss P. Sarada v. CIT?

64 judgments on BharatTax cite Miss P. Sarada v. CIT (229 ITR 444), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Miss P. Sarada v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 2(22)(e), Section 115-O, Section 139(4), Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

229 ITR 444Supreme Court of India1998#1756 most cited

What is Miss P. Sarada v. CIT authority for?

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT · Section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · loan or advance to shareholder · closely held company · subsequent repayment · accumulated profits · 229 ITR 444 · beneficial owner · shareholder loan taxability

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 115-O Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 194C

Issues it is cited on

closely held company accumulated profits section 2(22)deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)beneficial owner section 56 previous year section 143(2)transfer company person

Judgments citing Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADINENI SITARAMAIAH, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

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

…the hands of the assessee, we find that the same suffers from certain serious factual infirmities. Before proceeding further on the issue, we may herein observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss P. Sarada Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1998) 229 ITR 444 (SC), had observed that the loan or advance taken from the company may have been ultimately repaid or adjusted, but that will not alter the fact that the assessee, in the eyes of law, had received dividend from the company during the relevant accounting period. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the Hon’b…

AFSANA BEGUM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 113/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56

…ear: 2020-21 Afsana Begum. taxmann.com 178 (Madras)/[2019] 417 ITR 223 (Madras)[25-09- 2018], Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC)[28-04-1977], Miss P. Sarada vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 96 Taxman 11 (SC)/[1998] 229 ITR 444 (SC)/[1998] 144 CTR 209 (SC)[09-12-1997] in support of the claim that no addition could have been made on account of deemed dividend during the assessment year as no loan was received during the impugned A.Y. 2020-21. 6. It was also stated by the Ld. AR that as per the decision in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam (supra) (paper book page 48) the c…

SREENI PARAMESWARAN,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ich shall stand to be credited, similarly, when sums are paid or transferred to the company, as well as remuneration from it. Any debit balance in the account, even if adjusted subsequently, shall attract section 2(22)(e) of the Act (Sarada (P.) v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 444 (SC); Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1997] 108 ITR 345 (SC)). Only the surplus, if any, in this account would stand to be adjusted against debit balance in the Flat (Villa) account. 4.7 A surviving issue would be the date of the debits or credits in respect of transactions by way of journal entries. This is as money (money’s worth) stand already receive…

VENKATACHALAM MOHAN,COIMBATORE vs. JCIT, RANGE-II, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 35/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Venkatachalam Mohan, The Joint Commissioner Of 120, 11Th Street, Tatabad, V. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 012. Range-Ii, [Pan: Aavpm-5923-D] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Ca & Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, CA &For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 2(22)(e)

…loan or advance by the company to shareholder, but fact that the loan or advance was ultimately adjusted at the end of the year will not alter the position and in this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sarada vs CIT 229 ITR 444 (SC). The Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly treated loans from the company as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act and their order should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As per provisions of secti…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, MANGALORE vs. SHRI.P.M.A.RAZAK, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1637/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Saravanan, D.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, A.R

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA No.1637/Bang/2016 Shri P.M.A. Razak, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri P.M.A. Razak HC-12, His Grace Apartments Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Martin Paes Road Central Circle-II Vs. Hat Hill Mangalore Mangalore PAN NO : ABYPR9231M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Saravanan, D.R. Respondent by : Smt. Sheetal, A.R. Date of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by r…

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…e issue was not covered by the order of ITAT Amritsar Bench, in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 508/Asr/2017, date of order 05.07.2019. The ld. DR further relied on the cases Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345(SC)&Ms. P Sarada v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 444 (SC) 12.1 The ld. DR invited our attention in appeal order para 3.2 which is extracted as below: “3.2 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and find that Sub-clause (e) of section 2(22) brings into its ambit as “dividend” any payment by way of advance or loan by a closely held company to a shareholder, being a person who is…

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

V SRIRAM (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.863/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.V.Sriram (Huf), V. The Asst. Commissioner- 7, Ab Iii Block, Of Income Tax (Osd), Kences Enclave, Non-Corporate Ward-2(1), No.1, Ramakrishna Street, Chennai-34. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aarhs 1926 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.Sivaraman, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023

For Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 2(22)(e)

…s.42,87,200 and Rs. were PROVIDED by these HUFs. 6. Even assuming but not accepting the assessee's contentions that the amounts advanced by the company were repaid, still it has to be treated as deemed dividend. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P Sarada (229 ITR 444) has held that the loan or advance taken from the company may have been ultimately repaid :: 4 :: or adjusted but that will not alter the fact that the assessee in the eye of law had received dividend from the company during the relevant accounting period. The same view was earlier expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata S…

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…eds to be upheld and the ITAT's transaction, discerned by the AO needs to be upheld and the ITAT's transaction, discerned by the AO needs to be upheld and the ITAT's reasoning was set aside. reasoning was set aside. 18.8 In the case of Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT, 229 ITR 444(SC), the Hon'ble 18.8 In the case of Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT, 2 29 ITR 444(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that advances made by company to assessee Supreme Court has held that advances made by company to assessee Supreme Court has held that advances made by company to assessee would have to be treated as deemed dividends paid on dates when…

GEETA BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Geeta Bhasin, Vs Acit, C/O-Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Adv., Circle-28(1), C0763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025. Pan-Acdpb6005D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Shri M.Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022

Section 12ASection 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 41(1)

…ed by provisions of section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act. Repayment of the amount subsequently would not save the appellant from applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss P. Sarada vs CIT [1988] 229 ITR 444 (SC) held that advances made by company to assessee would have to be treated as deemed dividends paid on dates when withdrawals were allowed to be made and subsequent adjustment of account made on very last day of accounting year would not alter position that assessee received notional dividends on various dates. Hence, addition of Rs.4,70,000/-…

ACIT CENTRAL CIR. 6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AJAY VIRENDRA ARORA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2149/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ajay Virendra Acit-Cen.Circle – 6(4), Arora, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 6Th Floor, S14, Solitaire India Building, Nariman बिधम/ Corporate Park, Guru Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Addpa6742R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Mishra, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Jain/ Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.08.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Mishra, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain/ Shri

Section 153ASection 19Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ion of the same." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam & Ors. Vs. CIT(SC) 108 ITR 345 and Sarada Vs. CIT (SC) 229 ITR 444." 2. The facts in brief are that, assessee has been showing salary income in the capacity of a Directors in; D‟ Decor Home Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Home Idea Curtain Fabrics and Home Idea Upholstery Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also shown income from house property, capital gains and other sources. The return of income was filed on 31.10.17 declaring tot…

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

ITA 492/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…as holding beneficial interest. It is settled law that deemed dividend provisions get attracted as soon as it takes benefit and it does not matter whether it is repaid within the same year. It is similar to the case of Miss P. Sarda v. CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 11/229 ITR 444 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex court held that even though the loan is repaid at the end of the year, will attract the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the act. Therefore, in our considered view, even though assessee claims it as inter corporate deposit, the literal meaning will remain same as the short term loan enjoyed by the assessee, hence in our con…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

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

…that company were held to be treated as Loan or advance by the company to the assessee so as to attract the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This decision of the Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Miss P. SaradaVsCIT 229 ITR 444, at 448, 449(SC). Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) accepting the claim of the assessee in this regard held that there is deemed dividend to the assessee, during the year, to the extent of Rs.5,50,00,000 crones, on account of this financial transaction and the accounting entries passed by the M/s. GIPL, in its books, which have been duty audited u/s 44 AB an…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

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

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. LATE SHRI NAREN RAJAN, REP.BY L/H SMT. PADMINI V.R, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 2(22)(e)

…ade towards deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act.” 16. Coming back to case laws relied upon by the ld. DR. The ld. DR has relied upon certain judicial precedents including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss P. Sarada vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 444. We have gone through various case laws relied upon by the Revenue and find that, none of the case laws relied upon by the ld. DR dealt with the issue of normal trade advances / commercial transactions between company and shareholder. In fact, in all case laws relied upon by the Revenue, the issue was whether loans and advances given to a shareho…

PADMINI RAJAN, L/R OF LATE (SHRI) NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1002/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 2(22)(e)

NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 743/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 2(22)(e)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2) , BANGALORE vs. M/S. ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 983/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…the decision so rendered by Ld CIT(A), both the parties are in appeal before us. 6.5 We notice that the decision taken by Ld CIT(A) to give set off amounts repaid is against the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss P Sarada vs. CIT (229 ITR 444)(SC). In the above said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the loan or advance taken from the company may have been ultimately repaid or adjusted but that will not alter the fact that the assessee, in the eye of law, had received dividend from the company during the relevant accounting period. Hence the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue…

EXOTICA HOUSING & INFRSTRUCTURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 8(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.5188/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2013-2014 M/s. Exotica Housing & The Income Tax Officer, Infrastructure Company Ward – 8 (4), [vs. Pvt. Ltd., 228, Basement, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi - 092 New Delhi. PAN AABCE6019K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),,, GUNTUR vs. LALITH KUMAR BAGRECHA, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 232/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.232/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Lalith Kumar Bagrecha Circle-1(1) 24-9-80, R.Agraharam Guntur Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9444K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR

Section 188Section 2(22)(e)

…ed that the assessee having fully known the provisions of the Companies Act, entered into the transaction against the Company Law. The Ld.DR further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Sarada Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Madras, 229 ITR 444 held that the advances made by the company to the assessee are to be treated as deemed dividend and subsequent adjustment of the account will not alternate the position. Therefore, argued that the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have treated the advance as trade advance and deleted the addition. 5. On the other hand, the Ld.AR submitted that there is no…

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4