DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MADHU INDIA DECO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1385/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 2022AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked if the assessee is not a shareholder of the lending company. It also held that delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the AO. The additions pertained to deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and disallowance of employees' PF contribution.

What were the issues?

Whether a loan received from a group company can be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) when the assessee is not a shareholder of the lending company. Whether delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution is disallowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 43B,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth
For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 02.08.2022Pronounced: 05.08.2022

Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-24, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y.2014-15. The revenue has raised the following grounds before us:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/ of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(2).

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →