THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that TDS under Section 194 is only required when payments are made to registered shareholders. Since the loans were advanced to group companies that were not shareholders of the appellant, the obligation to deduct TDS did not arise.
What were the facts?
The assessee company advanced inter-corporate deposits to six subsidiary companies. The Revenue treated these loans as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and demanded TDS under Section 194. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the payee companies were not registered shareholders of the appellant.
What were the issues?
Whether inter-corporate deposits advanced to group companies, in which common directors have substantial interest but are not registered shareholders of the lending company, are considered deemed dividend requiring TDS.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.202 citing340 ITR 14 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., ChennaiChennai21 Feb 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee companies were not shareholders of M/s. IG3 Infra Limited, the payments could not be ta...
- The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Sai Jyoti Fashions Pvt. Ltd., SuratSurat24 Oct 2018Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) applies to payments made to a shareholder or a concern where such a shareholder has a substantial interest. Since the assessee company was not a shareholder of the lender company, ...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate… vs M/S Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions…Chennai30 Nov 2018Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable because the assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company. Following the precedent in Cargill India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT, the Tribunal ag...
- Ravi Pichaya, Director in Hextech Engineers… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…Pune10 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the reassessment proceedings were independently initiated by the AO and not based on any prior unfavorable decision. The Tribunal also found no error in treating...
- Dcitcc-2(3), Mumbai vs Avinash Constructions, PuneMumbai28 May 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) applies only to dividends taxed in the hands of the shareholder, not the recipient concern. Since the assessee firm was not a shareholder of the lending company, the provisions of ...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
