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

ITO, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata vs. Magnum Clothing (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1352/KOL/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2002-03 Ito, Ward-10(2), 3 V/S. Magnum Clothing (P) Ltd. Govt. Place (West), C/O Chopra & Company, Kolkata-700 001 Chartered Accountants, Chopra House, 133, Canning Street, Kolkata-700 001 [Pan No.Aaccm 0783 F]

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…e, the CIT(A) has erred in holding the addition of Rs.33,54,034/- as deemed dividend income of the assessee company not sustainable as per law. His decision is in apparent variance to the decision of the apex court in the case of P. Sarada Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 444 and of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. P.K.Abubucker reported in 259 ITR 507.” 2. The effective ground no. 1 to 4 are inter-connected and hence same is clubbed together for the sake of convenience is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by TPO on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 3. Facts in brief as culled out from the re…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Dina Sudhir Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4184/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Uday B JakkeFor Respondent: Dr.P.Daniel
Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं संदीप गोसाई, न्याययक सदस्य के सभऺ BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4184/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner of बिधम/ Smt.Dina Sudhir Shah, Income Tax , 16(3), 535, Panchratna, Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AAOPS6594…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Smt. Reeta Lankalingam, Chennai

ITA 2242/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Dr. Anitha Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rangaraj, IRS, CIT
Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(3)

…e) - I.T.A.No.15 /Mds/2014 and others. :- 12 -: . In the affirmative holding that the amount was correctly taxed as deemed dividend. While holding so the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court quoted the Supreme Court in the case of Miss P. Sharda v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 444, wherein the apex court considered section 2(22)(e) of the Act and wherein it was 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 .’’ And obs…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Raj Kumar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1130/2007HC Delhi14 May 2009
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr S.K. Khurana, Advocate
Section 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…he judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Nagindas M. Kapadia (1989) 177 ITR 393. The assessee also tried to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court with which he was confronted, that is, in the case of Miss P. Sarada vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 444. 2009:DHC:2079-DB 3.4 The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced that the money received by the assessee was in the nature of an advance received by CEI from its customers which was passed on to the assessee towards execution of the job work entrusted to him for manufacture of customized kitchen equipment. The Assessing Officer…