What is the leading case on Section 2(22)(a)?

CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (319 ITR 204) is the decision most relied on for Section 2(22)(a), cited in 378 judgments on BharatTax. Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not applicable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

Which cases are most cited on Section 2(22)(a)?

CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (319 ITR 204) — 378 citing judgments; Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai (84 Taxmann.com 51) — 263 citing judgments; Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (5 SCC 482) — 261 citing judgments; CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (340 ITR 14) — 202 citing judgments; Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT (263 ITR 143) — 181 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 2(22)(a)?

BharatTax indexes 17 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 2(22)(a) (Section 2(22)(a)).

Section 2(22)(a) — 17 case laws

M/S. Ajk Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4362/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

APPEAL- (a) 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming a protective addition of ₹2,04,33,430 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without proper appreciation of facts and applicable laws. 4. A) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the protective ... addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee company under section 2(22)(a) of substantive assessment made or proposed in the hands of any other person involved, rendering the said addition bad in law, arbitrary, and liable to be deleted. B) The Learned

JCIT(OSD) I/C. of DCIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zt Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as per our aforesaid observations

ITA 1729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1729/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), I/C. Dcit-1(3)(1), Mumbai (M.H.)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 92C

account of shortfall in receipt of premium by the Appellant as dividend paid by Appetent to its AE as per section 2(22)(a) of the Act and should be subjected to DDT in the hands of the Appellant in terms of the provisions of section 115A read with section ... adjustment of INR 6,39,60,000 considering the short recovery of premium as dividend paid by Appellant to its AE as per section 2(22)(a) of the Act and should be subjected to DDT in the hands of the Appellant in terms of the provisions of section 115A

DCIT Central Circle 05, Delhi vs. Deepak Kothari, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Deepak Kathari, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

JCIT(OSD), Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (India) Ltd, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

demerger of an undertaking as deemed release I distribution of assets by the Appellant to its shareholders as dividend under provisions of section 2(22) of the Act. 2.2 Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 6– shareholders of Appellant is considered as distribution of dividend under section 2(22) of the Act, quantum of dividend which is paid by way of specie distribution of assets needs to be considered as market value

Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

demerger of an undertaking as deemed release I distribution of assets by the Appellant to its shareholders as dividend under provisions of section 2(22) of the Act. 2.2 Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 6– shareholders of Appellant is considered as distribution of dividend under section 2(22) of the Act, quantum of dividend which is paid by way of specie distribution of assets needs to be considered as market value

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpay Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4362/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

APPEAL- (a) 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming a protective addition of ₹2,04,33,430 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without proper appreciation of facts and applicable laws. 4. A) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the protective ... addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee company under section 2(22)(a) of substantive assessment made or proposed in the hands of any other person involved, rendering the said addition bad in law, arbitrary, and liable to be deleted. B) The Learned

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

received by the Small Industries Bank”. The following were the relevant observations by the Hon’ble High Court: “14. Dividend is defined in Section 2(22) of the IT Act to, inter alia, include any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, which entails releasing any assets by the company ... shareholders. In terms of Explanation 2 to Section 2(22) of the said Act, the expression accumulated profits includes all company profits up to the date of distribution or payment thereof. It appears that the transfer of profits of Petitioner to IDBI in terms of Section 29(2) of SIDBI

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

received by the Small Industries Bank”. The following were the relevant observations by the Hon’ble High Court: “14. Dividend is defined in Section 2(22) of the IT Act to, inter alia, include any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, which entails releasing any assets by the company ... shareholders. In terms of Explanation 2 to Section 2(22) of the said Act, the expression accumulated profits includes all company profits up to the date of distribution or payment thereof. It appears that the transfer of profits of Petitioner to IDBI in terms of Section 29(2) of SIDBI

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Star Line Leasing Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1973/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 2(22)(e)Section 7

therefore this transfer amounts to the distribution by way of release of assets in favour of shareholders only and accordingly conditions of Section 2(22)(a) are satisfied? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in holding that ... provisions of Section 2(22)(e) do not attract to the above transfer without appreciating that second limb of Section 2(22)(e) covers any payment for the individual benefit of shareholder and the impugned transfer amounts to payment by it for the individual benefit of its shareholder since

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR

Section 115