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.

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 444)

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Mazda Concrete Products (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.118/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Acit,Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Mazda Concrete Bhubaneswar Products (P) Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Grand, Rajbhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcm 9883 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, Fca Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar Dated 12.02.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,50,24,517/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Closing Stock. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 17,34,99120/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of-The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law-As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.57,75,425/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Interest Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,59,634/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, FCA ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CITDR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(7)

…10% of its shares held by Patil Rail Infrastructure. M/s. Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. has accumulated profits. The AO dealt on the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I. T. Act, and relied on judicial decisions in the case of P. Sarada Vs CIT (SC) 229 ITR 444 and considered the amount of Rs.17,34,99,270/- as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition to the income. 8. Aggrieved by the disallowance made by the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and findings of AO, has deleted the addi…

Zakaulla Siddqui, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui Asst. Commissioner Of A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Income-Tax, Central Vs. House, Napean Sea Road, Circle-47, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 A.C.I.T.-Cc-8(4) Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. House, Napean Sea Road, Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…to tax attaches to any amount taken as a loan by a shareholder from a closely-held company at the moment the loan is borrowed and it is immaterial whether the loan is repaid before the end of the accounting year or not . Again in Miss P. Sarada v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 444, 448 (SC), the 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, on fulfilment of the conditions laid down in section 2(22)(e), from the company during the relevant previous year. In t…

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal., Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(2), Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Nalin ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Dr. Divya KJ

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, vs. Income-tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(2), Hyderabad PAN – ALCPA 1419N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nalin Shah Revenue by : Smt. Dr. Divya KJ Date of hearing 09-01-2018 Date of pronouncement 12-01-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) – 6, Hyderabad, dated 05/05/2017 for the AY 2014-15. 2. Briefly the facts of t…

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed

ITA 274/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 14(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 274/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2012-13 JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA ACIT, CIRCLE-1, 219, RAILWAY ROAD, VS. MEERUT MEERUT – 250002 UTTAR PADESH (PANl AARPG5507B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Sumit Goyal, CA Department by : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut relevant to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:- “1. That the A…

Sh. Harish Kanwar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed for statistical

ITA 529/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 529/DEL/2017 A.Y. : 2011-12 SH. HARISH KANWAR, ITO, WARD 3(4), M-259, GREATER KAILASH-II, VS. NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 048 (PAN: AABPK1035G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Department by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 12.10.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts…

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)

…s International Pvt. Ltd holding 83.71% share and ld. Assessing Officer issued show notice to the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer relied on the following circular/case-law. 1. Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 issued by CBDT. 2. Miss. P.Sarada Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 444 3. CIT Vs. S R Talwar 305 ITR 286 4. CIT vs. G. Narasimhan 236 ITR 329(1999) 5. CIT Vs. P.K. Badiani 6. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR (SC) 7.CIT vs. Bhagwat Tewari (1976) 105 ITR 62 (Ca/). ITA No.462/Mds/2013. :- 4 -: Thus, the AO concluded that the amount of loan received by the assessee company from M/s. Classic Linens International…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shiv Saran Chand Ved Prakash, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5448/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…the supari it canceled is different on the plea that the quality is not of the level agreed upon. The same was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P. Sarda Vs. CIT 229 ITR 444 wherein it is held that the 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 dividend on various dates. The Assessing Officer…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. Mrs. Shahanaz Mohiuddin, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Mrs. Shahanaz Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ustaining a sum of Rs.1 ,54,742/- as deemed divided u/s.2[22][e] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P .SHARADA reported in 229 ITR 444 [SC] is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, without appreciating that it was rendered on a concession or admitted fact by the aforesaid assessee that such withdrawals amounted to an advance whereas, in the appellant's case the amount are mere debits and credits in the current account and there is no understanding to charge an…

Ms. Mitu Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5652/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11 Mitu Singh, Vs. Dcit, C-4/142, Sda, Circle-14(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ausps8598M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhagwan Jha, Ca Department By : Shri N.K. Bawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2016 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 16.7.2014 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.14,34,968/- Made By The Ao As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Act. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Of M/S Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., For The Assessment Year 2010-11, It Came To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Bhagwan Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bawal, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)

…hich is shareholder in the company distributing dividend. Admittedly, the assessee received advance with outstanding balance of Rs.14.34 lac at the end of the year, which was adjusted in later years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miss P. Sarda vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 444 (SC), has held that withdrawals made by major shareholder is dividend u/s 2(22)(e), even if such amount is adjusted later on. The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully governed by the aforenoted two judgments. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue confirming the addition. 3 5. In the result, the appeal is dismis…

Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4227/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2006-07 Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Second Floor, Ward 12(3), 87, Zamrudpur, New Delhi. Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.B. Mathur, Ca Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : .09.2016

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)

…the assessment year under consideration. The contention that the loans received in earlier years were repaid, in my considered opinion, does not stand in view of the direct judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court in the case of Miss P. Sarada vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 444 (SC) in which it has been held that the withdrawals made by the major shareholder is dividend u/s 2(22)(e) even if it is adjusted later on. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in treating the sum of Rs.10 lac as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The impugned ord…

S.M. Arshad, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1384/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri S.M.Arshad, Flat No.604, Door No.14-2-175-40, Light House Condominium, Light House Hill Road, Mangalore-575001. … Appellant Pa No.Aczpa0799F Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Mangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…CIT(A) and he upheld the addition holding that the fact that subsequently loans were repaid has no bearing on the taxability of loans received as deemed dividend, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Miss P.Sarada vs. CIT (229 ITR 444). 5. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: Page 6 of 9 5. Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the same submissions as advanced before the CIT(A). On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We heard ri…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nd to be. In its’ view, the Parliament had deliberately omitted to import the last limb of section 108(1) of the Common Wealth Act, providing instead for exclusion only for repayments made up to 30.6.1955. The controversy involved in Sarda (P.) vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 444 (SC) was that if the withdrawal/s made by a shareholder from his account with a company (in which he had substantial interest), which is to be regarded as a loan or advance (from the company to the shareholder), could be subsequently adjusted in the account of another shareholder, who had a credit balance with the company, thus avoiding tax. The…

Maheswari Yuvaraj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 284/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.284/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Mrs. Maheswari Yuvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Anand & Ponnappan C.As., Vs. Income Tax, 46-B, 4Th Floor, South Boag Road, Company Circle Iii(2), T. Nagar, Chennai 17. Chennai. [Pan: Agopm2127N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. J. Ilavarasi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Iii, Chennai, Dated 04.11.2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition By The Ld. Cit(A) At ₹.27,58,349/- By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri A. Satyaseelan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J. Ilavarasi, JCIT

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

…e ld. AR has submitted that the advance paid to the assessee on day-to-day basis cannot be set off against the subsequent 3 I.T.A. No.284/M/14 entry towards salary and rent or sale of property. He relied on the judgement in the case of Miss P. Sarada v. CIT 229 ITR 444(SC), wherein, it was held that withdrawal made by the share holder on various dates, the amounts to the current account of the Director, in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, even though ultimately the amount was adjusted against the current balance of another share holder at the end of the year. 5. We have heard both sides, perused the mater…

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Mazda Concrete Products (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

Zakaulla Siddqui, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal., Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

Sh. Harish Kanwar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Bharat Bir Mohindra, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shiv Saran Chand Ved Prakash, New Delhi

ACIT, Mangalore vs. Mrs. Shahanaz Mohiuddin, Mangalore

Mrs. Shahanaz Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

Mr. A. Mohiuddin, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

Ms. Mitu Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

S.M. Arshad, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

Maheswari Yuvaraj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai