Smt. Tarulata Shyam and Ors. v. CIT

82 ITR 485Reported decision1971#25861 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Smt. Tarulata Shyam and Ors. v. CIT

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

…d that the ‘concept of deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) postulated two factors : (i) whether the payment was a loan and (ii) whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. These two factors had to be co-related. In Tarulata Shyam v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 485, 494 (Cal), affirmed in (1997) 108 ITR 345 (SC), again the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that u/s 2(22)(e), the liability 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…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. GRANDEUR WEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 874/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 2(22)(e)

…f Section 2(22) (e) of the Act. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of K.M.S. Lakshmana Aiyar vs. Addl. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 469, that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam and others vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 485, and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadhana Textiles Mills Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 188 ITR 318, he held that Section 2(22) (e) of the Act took within its fold not only an individual but also a corporate entity. He made an addition of "1,19,30,943/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

MOHAMMED AHMED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, 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)

…10 A.Y. 2007-08 Md. Ahmed v. ACIT, Cir-29, Kol. Page 3 It is observed by Ld. CIT(A) in the 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…