Sundaram Chettiar and Another v. CIT

49 ITR 287High Court1963#20969 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Sundaram Chettiar and Another v. CIT

Hindusthan Engineering & Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central -1, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 19 To 25/Kol/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015-16 M/S Hindusthan Engineering & Vs. Acit, Central, Range-1, Kolkata Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aaach 8505 Q) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (" यथ")

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 35

…d company as advance given to assessee will attract provisions of section 2(22)(e). In this context, he has relied upon a decision of the ITAT Chennai Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 287. From the aforesaid discussions of learned CIT, it is apparent and obvious that the issue whether the advance can be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) at the hands of assessee is a debatable issue on which more than one view are possible. Therefore, when the view taken by Addl. CIT and Assessing Officer can be considered as one of the possib…

Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…on of the ITAT Chennai Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 287. From the aforesaid of T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 287. From the aforesaid of T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 287. From the aforesaid discussions of learned CIT, it is apparent and obvious that the issue whether the discussions of learned CIT, it is apparent and obvious that the issue whether the discussions o…

Mukundan Vijayan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 639/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 301

…a shareholder observed that the commercial profits upto the day of distribution was to be computed and for the purpose it was required to see the accumulated profits for working out the extent of deemed dividend. In T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another v. CIT 49 ITR 287 the Honb’le Jurisdictional Court have held that “Payment for the purpose of s.2(22)(e) need not be cash payment. A relationship of debtor and creditor between the shareholder and the company is sufficient. The ld.D.R submitted that the reasons advanced by the assessee for non-exigibility of s.2(22)(e) to the impugned transaction cannot be upheld.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Subrata Roy

ITA/398/2010HC Delhi17 Mar 2015

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…f loan from SISICOL, to the assessee. He held that the firm was only a conduit for the loan and that the firm’s loan to the assessee had its roots in the credit balance of SISICOL. Reliance was placed in this regard upon T. Sundaram Chettiar v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 287 (Mad) and M. D. Jindal v. CIT [1987] 164 ITR 28 (Cal). It was held that the firm did not have adequate resources and its advance to the assessee was not an independent transaction. Reference was made to the balance-sheet of the firm as on March 31, 1992, which showed that the partner's capital was only `40,000/-. The learned Accountant Membe…