Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

229 ITR 444Supreme Court of India1998#1755 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.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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-OSection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 194C

Issues it is cited on

closely held companyaccumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)beneficial ownersection 56previous yearsection 143(2)transfercompanyperson

Judgments citing Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Anumod Sharma, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6892/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6892/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Shri Anumod Sharma, Tax, Central Circle-16, D-305A, Laburnum Apartment, New Delhi-110055 Sushant Lok, Sector-28, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amyps5587L Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…harma " CIT vs. K. Shrinavasan 50 ITR 788 " CIT vs. P. Sarada 154ITR 387 (1985) (Mad) " MD Jindal vs. CIT 164 1TR 028 (Cal) (1987) " Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (1977)(SC) " Rajesh P. Ved vs. AC1T 001 ITR 275 (ITAT Mumbai) (2010) " Ms. Sarada P vs. CIT 229 ITR 444(SC) (1998) 6. During the arguments before us, the ld. DR argued that the trifurcation of the total amount into three different heads as i) Advance against commercial building Rs. 5,62,00,000/- ii) Anumod Sharma (expense account) Rs. 73,76,584/- iii) Anumod Sharma ledger account Rs. 6,00,84,793/- is a cover up exercise to camouflage the issue of…

Sri Bhaskar Raju, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1828/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1828 & 1829/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2011-12 Sri S.K Bhaskar Raju, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, #97, 8th Cross, RMV Extension, Range-9, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru. [ITA No.1829/Bang/2016] Bengaluru-560 080. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-9(1), PAN – ABLPB 3852 H Bengaluru. [ITA No.1828/Bang/2016] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hear…

Asian Business Conection Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT - 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

…individual benefit of a shareholder. 26. As held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Ravindra D. Amin vs CIT 208 ITR 815, a loan to a shareholder is deemed dividend irrespective of the purpose of the loan. 27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ms. P. Sarda vs CIT, 229 ITR 444 (SC) and Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs ClT, 108 ITR 345 (Se) that the fact that the loan is to be repaid during the same accounting year is immaterial. 28. The Delhi High Court, in the case of ClT v. Raj Kumar, 181 taxman 155 has distinguished between a 'loan' and an 'advance'. The relevant extract from the judgment IS reproduced below:- "If this purp…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4058/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…asoned order and thereafter proceed to dispose of appeal on merits In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T.Act: 1 Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11, 229 ITR 444. 144 CTR 2091 (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 divi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2603/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…asoned order and thereafter proceed to dispose of appeal on merits In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T.Act: 1 Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11, 229 ITR 444. 144 CTR 2091 (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 divi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2600/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…asoned order and thereafter proceed to dispose of appeal on merits In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T.Act: 1 Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11, 229 ITR 444. 144 CTR 2091 (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 divi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2599/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…asoned order and thereafter proceed to dispose of appeal on merits In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T.Act: 1 Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11, 229 ITR 444. 144 CTR 2091 (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 divi…

M/S G G Oils & Fats Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…, in fact, been reasonable in working the sum assessable u/s. 2(22)(e) u/s. 56 at Rs.117.17 lacs, which was accordingly confirmed by the first appellate authority, placing reliance on Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1997] 108 ITR 345 (SC) and Sarada (P.) v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 444 (SC). 3 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal, raising the following grounds: ‘1. That the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Bathinda is against law & facts. 2. That Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in law to sustain the amount…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Basant Poddar

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/73/2010HC Karnataka10 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 260A

…e instance of the assessee who was the MS and the shareholder to M/s.Solid Real Estate Private Limited and in turn to Smt. Vandana Poddar would amount to deemed dividend as per Section.2(22)(e) of the Act, and the 11 judgments of the Apex Court in 229 ITR 444, 290 ITR 893? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount paid by MEL to M/s.Solid Real Estate Private Limited and thereafter to Smt.Vandana Poddar was a commercial transaction, despite the 5% interest shown was only on paper and not actual and the entire series of transactions was entered into is the sole objec…

DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3249/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…al purposes.” 14. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. The Ld. DR referring to the following decisions submitted that the deletion made by the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs.…

DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3248/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…al purposes.” 14. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. The Ld. DR referring to the following decisions submitted that the deletion made by the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs.…

Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

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

ITA 2472/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…al purposes.” 14. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. The Ld. DR referring to the following decisions submitted that the deletion made by the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs.…

Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

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

ITA 2471/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 132Section 142Section 153

…al purposes.” 14. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. The Ld. DR referring to the following decisions submitted that the deletion made by the CIT(A) is not proper. 1. Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT [96 Taxman 11,229 ITR 444, 144 CTR 209] 2. CIT Vs Miss. P. Sarada [21 Taxman 94] 3. Gopal and Sons (HUF) Vs CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC) 8 4. CIT Vs Muukundray K. Shah [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 ITR 433 (S C) / [2007] 209 CTR 97 5. Puneet Bhagat Vs. ITO (157 ITD353) 6. Addl. CIT Vs. Shri Chandrakant V Gosalia [2015-TIOL-1187-ITAT- MUM] 7. Sunil Kapoor Vs.…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…bmitted that shareholding pattern and profit are not disputed. It is not proved that it was a commercial transaction. It is a loan or advance. Therefore, the addition is rightly made. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision in the case of Smt. P. Sharada vs. CIT 229 ITR 444. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that Samag group of companies consisted of various entities engaged jointly in the business of real estate development in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consortium Agreement and other Agreements were executed between all the group concerns.…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…bmitted that shareholding pattern and profit are not disputed. It is not proved that it was a commercial transaction. It is a loan or advance. Therefore, the addition is rightly made. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision in the case of Smt. P. Sharada vs. CIT 229 ITR 444. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that Samag group of companies consisted of various entities engaged jointly in the business of real estate development in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consortium Agreement and other Agreements were executed between all the group concerns.…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…bmitted that shareholding pattern and profit are not disputed. It is not proved that it was a commercial transaction. It is a loan or advance. Therefore, the addition is rightly made. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision in the case of Smt. P. Sharada vs. CIT 229 ITR 444. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that Samag group of companies consisted of various entities engaged jointly in the business of real estate development in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consortium Agreement and other Agreements were executed between all the group concerns.…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…bmitted that shareholding pattern and profit are not disputed. It is not proved that it was a commercial transaction. It is a loan or advance. Therefore, the addition is rightly made. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision in the case of Smt. P. Sharada vs. CIT 229 ITR 444. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that Samag group of companies consisted of various entities engaged jointly in the business of real estate development in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consortium Agreement and other Agreements were executed between all the group concerns.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Seema Devi Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6462/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…ead as under:- “Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T. Act: 1- Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT T96 Taxman 11. 229 ITR 444. 144 CTR 2091 (where Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 da…

ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Anushree V. Khetan, Mumbai

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 4975/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Sing, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4975/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ito-24(1)(2) Smt. Anushree V. Khetan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 78, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aocpk 8810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…5 Payment through bank 3000000 -10700000 26/09/2005 Payment through bank 100000 -10800000 05/10/2005 Payment through bank 3734000 -14534000 10/11/2005 Receipt 100000 -14434000 7. The Assessing Officer placed reliance on various case laws like Sarda vs. CIT (229 ITR 444) (SC) wherein it was held that what triggers the liability under this fictional provision is the fulfillment of the requisite conditions for taxability hereunder at any time during the relevant year under consideration. The moment the requisite conditions are fulfilled, the taxability is triggered irreversibly. Hence, it would be an immaterial…

Ashish Dham, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6607/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)

…s and relief was given to the assessee entirely on the facts of that particular case. 6. We further find that the case of the assessee is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ms P. Sarda vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 444 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had 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 eyes of law had received dividend from the company during the relevant accounting year. This judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court was also followed by the Hon’…