ELLIAS MOHAMMED NAJEEB,TRIVANDRUM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-3, KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the additions were based on material furnished by the assessee during assessment proceedings and not on search findings, they were not sustainable.
What were the facts?
A search was conducted on the assessee's group, and subsequently, notices under section 153A were issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) based on cash flow statements provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for concluded assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether additions for deemed dividend in concluded assessment years are valid without incriminating material found during a search. Whether material furnished during assessment proceedings can form the basis for additions in concluded years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT
These are the two appeals filed by the same assessee for the assessment year 2011 – 12 and 2012 – 13 against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of income tax (A), Kochi – 3. Involving common issues, argued by the parties together, and therefore disposed of by this common order.
ITA No. 4 of 2026 pertains to assessment year 2011–12 and arises from the appellate order dated 7 November 2025 passed by the learned CIT(A). By that order, the appeal filed by the assessee aga
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)
- Sindhu Farms Pvt Ltd, Gurugram vs DCIT, RohtakITA 8194/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Pranav Prakashchandra Kansara, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 5 3 2 Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhavan…ITA 911/AHD/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Pranav Prakashchandra Kansara, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 5 3 2 Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhavan…ITA 911/AHD/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- M/S. Jsw Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6051/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S. Jsw Cement Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4867/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026