ANANG KUNJVIHARIBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2)), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1156/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 February 2026AY 2015-16Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payment made by the company was a mere withdrawal/repayment of the assessee's own deposit, not a fresh loan or advance. Since the company did not provide any money to the assessee, and his credit balance was merely reduced, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Managing Director and 57% shareholder in M/s Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd., maintained a deposit account with the company. During AY 2015-16, the company made payments of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the assessee's behalf (for a donation claimed u/s 80GGC) by debiting his existing deposit account, which maintained a credit balance. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) treated this payment as a deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether a payment made by a company on behalf of a shareholder, by debiting the shareholder's existing credit balance in a deposit account, constitutes a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, especially when the account never went into debit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 80GGC,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.11.2025Pronounced: 03.02.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl. / Jt. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Faridabad (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering repayment of deposit by the company of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the appellant as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act and thereby confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

2.

That the various reason advanced by lea

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 →