Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT

108 ITR 345Supreme Court of India1977#430 most cited

What is Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT authority for?

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

209

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT · 108 ITR 345 SC · strict interpretation taxing statutes · no purposive interpretation direct tax laws · legislative intent no omission · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 5 · Section 4 · Section 6 · Section 139(1) · Income Tax Act interpretation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 148Section 5Section 4Section 6Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profitsdeemed dividendsection 2(22)section 2(22)(e)mercantile system of accountingbook profitscommercial expediencyliable to taxdisallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14anon-residentsection 40(a)

Judgments citing Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2817/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anandee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276DSection 37(1)Section 43Section 43B

…120 ITD 48 (Indore). The provisions contained u/s 153A are plain and clear and there is no ambiguity. Therefore, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words should be adopted as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases Taru Lata Shyam v/s. CIT 108 ITR 345. Keshavji Raoji & Co. v/s. CIT 183 ITR 1: Gum Devdutta VKSS Maryadit v/s. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 1980 and CIT v/s. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala 252 ITR (Constitution bench). It is the cardinal Rule of interpretation of statute that the words of the statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense unless the language of the…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 857/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…of the Act. In absence of such a provision enacted by the Parliament in section 10AA of the Act, it is not possible for any other person to read such provision in section 10AA of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sm. Tarulata Shyam Vs. CIT (1971) 108 ITR 345 (SC) held that there is no scope for importing in the statute words which are not there. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shann Finance Private Limited (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC) went on to hold that in interpreting statute, court cannot proceed to make good the deficiencies if there be any. The court interpret the statute as it…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. at & S India Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Vapi Range, Vapi, reported in [2015] 63 taxmann.com 353 (Ahmedabad - Trib.). The Tribunal, placing reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT reported in [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC), has confirmed that there is no scope for importing into the statute the words which are not there. Such importation would be not to construe but to amend the statute. It has been further held that the benefit test, which is set out in the OECD Guidance and which finds its place in the international best practices, does not find its place in…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S at & S Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Vapi Range, Vapi, reported in [2015] 63 taxmann.com 353 (Ahmedabad - Trib.). The Tribunal, placing reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT reported in [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC), has confirmed that there is no scope for importing into the statute the words which are not there. Such importation would be not to construe but to amend the statute. It has been further held that the benefit test, which is set out in the OECD Guidance and which finds its place in the international best practices, does not find its place in…

ITO, Coimbatore vs. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Private Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri . Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 2(22)

…ing provision and had to be construed strictly. As per the ld. Assessing Officer, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 275 and Tarulata ITA Nos.1691 & 1973 /2015 :- 4 -: Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345, Section 2(22) (e) of the Act stood attracted on loans taken by a shareholder from a controlled company, to the extent such company possessed accumulated profits. Aggregate amount of "35,82,27,603/- received by the assessee from ISML during the period 19.01.2012 to 31.03.2012 was considered as deemed dividend in assessee’s hand and assessment…

Indoshell Automotive Systems India P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1691/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri . Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 2(22)

…ing provision and had to be construed strictly. As per the ld. Assessing Officer, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kantilal Manilal vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 275 and Tarulata ITA Nos.1691 & 1973 /2015 :- 4 -: Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345, Section 2(22) (e) of the Act stood attracted on loans taken by a shareholder from a controlled company, to the extent such company possessed accumulated profits. Aggregate amount of "35,82,27,603/- received by the assessee from ISML during the period 19.01.2012 to 31.03.2012 was considered as deemed dividend in assessee’s hand and assessment…

ITO 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rainbow Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3431/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

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

…have been there to make the statute workable, cannot be supplied by us, as, to do so will be clearly beyond the call and scope of our duty which is only to interpret the law as it exists. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt. TarulataShyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 at page 356 has observed : M/s. Rainbow Investment Ltd., AY 2009-10 "We have given anxious thought to the persuasive arguments.... (which) if accepted, will certainly soften the rigour of this extremely drastic provision and bring it more in conformity with logic and equity. But the language of sections....is clear and unambiguous. There is no sc…

Multiplier Share and Stock Advisor P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 3659/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Multiplier Shares & Stock The Dcit -4(3)(2), Advisors Private Limited, Aayakarbhavan, 401-B, Avihari Building, M.K. Road, S.V. Road, Near Simpoli Signal, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400092 Pan: Aadcm6646A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai (Advocate) Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2018

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A

…he other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that since the Ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC), there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material on record including the case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of the rival submissions. Section 2(22)(e) of the Act reads as under: (e) “any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are s…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…dships further invoked “Golden Rule” of interpretation that the words of a statute must prima facie to be given their ordinary meaning. We find it very much relevant at this stage that their lordships yet another judgment in Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) also made it clear that it is the fundamental rule of taxation that where there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there, such an important word would be not to construe but to amend the statute. And also that even if there is any casus omisus, the defect can be remedied by the legislation alone and not by judicia…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…dships further invoked “Golden Rule” of interpretation that the words of a statute must prima facie to be given their ordinary meaning. We find it very much relevant at this stage that their lordships yet another judgment in Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) also made it clear that it is the fundamental rule of taxation that where there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there, such an important word would be not to construe but to amend the statute. And also that even if there is any casus omisus, the defect can be remedied by the legislation alone and not by judicia…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…dships further invoked “Golden Rule” of interpretation that the words of a statute must prima facie to be given their ordinary meaning. We find it very much relevant at this stage that their lordships yet another judgment in Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) also made it clear that it is the fundamental rule of taxation that where there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there, such an important word would be not to construe but to amend the statute. And also that even if there is any casus omisus, the defect can be remedied by the legislation alone and not by judicia…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1962/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…dships further invoked “Golden Rule” of interpretation that the words of a statute must prima facie to be given their ordinary meaning. We find it very much relevant at this stage that their lordships yet another judgment in Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) also made it clear that it is the fundamental rule of taxation that where there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there, such an important word would be not to construe but to amend the statute. And also that even if there is any casus omisus, the defect can be remedied by the legislation alone and not by judicia…

Shri Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2663/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…l transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transaction in the account is nowhere treated as trade advances and the assessee has not claimed it to be so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam and Others vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) has held that loan advances to shareholders was repaid within 23 days still provision of the deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) are applicable. The claim of the assessee that account with the company is in the nature of current account is not supported by the fact of the case. Even if money is repaid by the assessee. It will not affect the applica…

Shri Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2031/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…l transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transaction in the account is nowhere treated as trade advances and the assessee has not claimed it to be so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam and Others vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) has held that loan advances to shareholders was repaid within 23 days still provision of the deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) are applicable. The claim of the assessee that account with the company is in the nature of current account is not supported by the fact of the case. Even if money is repaid by the assessee. It will not affect the applica…

Smt. Jullie Amit Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2030/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…l transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transaction in the account is nowhere treated as trade advances and the assessee has not claimed it to be so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam and Others vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) has held that loan advances to shareholders was repaid within 23 days still provision of the deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) are applicable. The claim of the assessee that account with the company is in the nature of current account is not supported by the fact of the case. Even if money is repaid by the assessee. It will not affect the applica…

Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2029/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…l transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transaction in the account is nowhere treated as trade advances and the assessee has not claimed it to be so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam and Others vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) has held that loan advances to shareholders was repaid within 23 days still provision of the deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) are applicable. The claim of the assessee that account with the company is in the nature of current account is not supported by the fact of the case. Even if money is repaid by the assessee. It will not affect the applica…

Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1545/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…l transactions but purely an advance with an application of repayment. The transaction in the account is nowhere treated as trade advances and the assessee has not claimed it to be so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam and Others vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) has held that loan advances to shareholders was repaid within 23 days still provision of the deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) are applicable. The claim of the assessee that account with the company is in the nature of current account is not supported by the fact of the case. Even if money is repaid by the assessee. It will not affect the applica…

Suresh A Shroff & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.76 & 77/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12& 2012-13) बिाम/ Suresh A Shroff & Co.(Now Acit Cir 11(3) Known As „Bohimia Realty Mumbai The Firm‟) V. 41/42, Lloyds Centre Point, Appa Saheb Marathemarg, Prabhadevi , Mumbai- 400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabfs1859A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Amit SinghaniaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.76 & 77/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12& 2012-13) बिाम/ Suresh A Shroff & Co.(Now ACIT CIR 11(3) known as „Bohimia Realty Mumbai the Firm‟) v. 41/42, Lloyds Centre Point, Appa Saheb MaratheMarg, Prabhadevi , Mumbai- 400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABFS1859A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Amit Singhania Revenue by : Shri. V. Justin सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of…

DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh vs. Smt. Priya Garg, Panchkula

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 989/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy.Cit Vs. Smt. Priya Garg, Central Circle-Ii H.No. 89,Sector-7 Chandigarh Panchkula

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 132Section 139Section 153Section 153A

…(b) of the IT Act, 1961 are Assess or Reassess the "Total Income" ix) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) right in not following the Hon'ble SC judgment on interpretation of statue in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Others vs. CIT (108 ITR 345), Keshavji Ravji And Co vd. CIT (183 ITR 1). Padamsundara Rao (Deed.) & others vs State of Tamil Nadu 255 ITR 147, Prakash Nath Khanna & Others vs CIT 266 ITR 1, Institute of Charted Accountants of India vs. Price water House 93 Taxman 588? x) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble HC j…

DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh vs. M/S Dhg Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 990/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Dhg Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, Sco 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aadcd1364Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…b) of the IT Act, 1961 are Assess or Reassess the "Total Income" ix) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A); right in not following the Hon'ble SC judgment on interpretation of statue in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Others vs. CIT (108 ITR 345), Keshavji Ravji And Co vd CIT (183 ITR 1). Padamsundara Rao (Deed.) & others vs State of Tamil Nadu 255 ITR 147, Prakash Nath Khanna & Others vs CIT 266 ITR 1, Institute of Charted Accountants of India vs. Price water House 93 Taxman 588? x) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble HC j…