What is CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah authority for?

For Section 2(22)(e) to apply, a payment by a company must be in the nature of a loan or advance, and the company must have accumulated profits. Such payments to a concern in which a shareholder, holding more than 10% voting power, has a substantial interest are deemed dividends if the shareholder ultimately benefits, even if routed through different modes or concerns.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah?

99 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah (290 ITR 433), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 2(22)(e), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 115-O.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah (290 ITR 433)

Tejal Ketan Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3273/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Tejal Ketan Shah, Income Tax Officer, 2901/2902, Estonia B Wing Ward-42(1)(5), Hiranandani, S.V. Road Poisar Opp. Mumbai Vs. Ragulila Mall Kandivali, Mumbai- 400067 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aglps 5568C Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)

…is no depletion in the capital account of the assessee in company’s book nor there is depletion in the capital and reserve of the company. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah [2007] 290 ITR 433 (SC). ii. PCIT vs. Anumod Sharma [2021] 132 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi). iii. ACIT vs. Shri Anumod Sharma, ITA No.6892/Del/2015, dated 26.12.2019. 6. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the observations of the First Appellate Authority. 7. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the judicial precedent cited before us and…

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…ision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayesh T Kotak Vs. DCIT [2020] 425 ITR 435 (Gujarat) (Pg No.140- 146 of PB-I), wherein it was held in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah [2007] 290 ITR 433 (SC) that any payment made by a company in which a shareholder has shareholding exceeding 10% of the voting power to any concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest, would be deemed to be dividend in his hands if any benefit from such transaction has been received by such shareholder. The Hon’ble High Court held that the intention…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Reji Abraham, Chennai

In the result, CO of the assessee vide CO-53/Chny/2024 is dismissed

ITA 1762/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita-1762 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Reji Abraham, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) No.113, Janapriya Crest, Chennai. Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Reji Abraham, Assistant Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janapriya Crest, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) Pantheon Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue For Ay-2011-12 & Ay-2011-12 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 2(22)

…the transfer of funds through a conduit company to a shareholder having more than 10% of shareholding will also attract the provisions of Sec.2(22)(3). The same is also supported by the Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of CIT V/s Mukundaray K.Sha 2007 290 ITR 433(SC) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s L.Alagusundaram Chettiyar [1977] 109 ITR 508(Mds.). The assessee should have offered Rs.16.5 Crs as deemed dividend as te accumulated profits in the company, M/s.Aban Investments Ltd. was Rs.478623697/-, but the assessee has not offered the same for taxation. Page - 11 - of 13 ITA…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…tionale has been provided for the advances. In the absence of such justification, the AO was justified in treating the amounts as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). 3. 4. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue's Stand • CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah [(2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC)]: The Supreme Court held that advances to concerns in which a shareholder has substantial interest are covered under Section 2(22)(e). • CIT v. P.K. Abubucker [(2003) 259 ITR 507 (Mad)]: The burden of proving that a transaction is a business advance and not a loan lies on the assessee. 3. 5. Errors in the Appellant's Arguments • The Appella…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…nsactions cannot be considered as loans and advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah reported in (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and submitted that, in order to invoke provisions of Section 2(22)(e), two factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this r…

Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1059/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…nsactions cannot be considered as loans and advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah reported in (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and submitted that, in order to invoke provisions of Section 2(22)(e), two factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this r…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1052/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…nsactions cannot be considered as loans and advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah reported in (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and submitted that, in order to invoke provisions of Section 2(22)(e), two factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this r…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1050/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…nsactions cannot be considered as loans and advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah reported in (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and submitted that, in order to invoke provisions of Section 2(22)(e), two factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this r…

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6363/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Krishan Kant Kohli Dcit C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Central Circle-Ii, South Extension, Part-1 Vs. Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Krishan Kant Kohli Central Circle-Ii A-2, Geetanjali Gurgaon, Vs. Enclave, Haryana New Delhi Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…ant Kohli 2.1 The Revenue’s Grounds of Appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 are as under:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, 290 ITR 433 under identical circumstances has upheld the addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the case of appellant(s) is neither covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor the definition of 'deemed dividend' u/s 2(22…

Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5720/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Krishan Kant Kohli Dcit C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Central Circle-Ii, South Extension, Part-1 Vs. Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Krishan Kant Kohli Central Circle-Ii A-2, Geetanjali Gurgaon, Vs. Enclave, Haryana New Delhi Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…ant Kohli 2.1 The Revenue’s Grounds of Appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 are as under:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, 290 ITR 433 under identical circumstances has upheld the addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) made by the AO. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the case of appellant(s) is neither covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor the definition of 'deemed dividend' u/s 2(22…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…nsactions cannot be considered as loans and advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah reported in (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and submitted that, in order to invoke provisions of Section 2(22)(e), two factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this r…

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…nsactions cannot be considered as loans and advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah reported in (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and submitted that, in order to invoke provisions of Section 2(22)(e), two factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this r…