“Section 2(22)(d)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(22)(d)12 judgments

HARMANDER SINGH SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

ITA 4018/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

ITA No.4018/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

purpose of Income Tax Act, but for the purpose of Income Tax Act, each transfer is a taxable event. Therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act, “deemed dividend" is applicable to the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has compensated these companies ... shares. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has given the direction to the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee, in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act and Section 115QA in respect of capital reduction of Rs.2.71 crores. The learned Counsel submitted that such enhancement order passed

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

BIGFLEX ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 3237/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalbigflex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Parijat House, 1076 Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Maharashtra 400 018 Pan: Aaccs2112A ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward-8(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

chargeable to additional income tax referred to as tax on distributed profits. 10. The question would be whether the deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(d) would fall within the purview of Sub- Section 1 of Section 115-O of the Act. However, the legislature has advisedly cleared this position ... shall not include sub-clause (e) thereof. 11. The plain effect of the explanation, therefore, would be that even the deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(d) of the Act would be covered for the purpose of Chapter XIID. In turn, therefore, such deemed dividend would be one which

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

after obtaining requisite approvals from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada vide letter dated March 26, 2015. As per section 2(22)(d) of the Act, any ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 distribution to its shareholders by a company on the reduction of its capital to the extent ... ICICI Bank Canada amounting to CAD 8,00,00,000, CAD 19,68,000 is apportioned towards deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act and CAD 7,80,32,000 being in excess of its accumulated profits is offered to tax under the head

ACIT-1(2)(1, MUMBAI vs. MERITON INFOTECH PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 741/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd. G-4, Khetan Bhavan, Acit -1(2)(1) Ek Omkar Premises Co- Room No. 535, Aaykar Ops, Bhavan, Vs. 198, Jamshedji Tata Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecm4348N Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 101Section 115Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

incidence in the hands of the company but it shall be taxable in the hands of the share holder under Section 2(22)(d)of the Act to the extent of accumulated profit as deemed dividend and balance sum is taxable as capital gain. ix. He further referred

LEGRAND NEDERLAND B.V.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

case and in law, the AO/ DRP has erred in treating the capital gains of INR 138,47.19,180 as dividend under section 2(22)(d) of the Income- tax Act. 1961 (the Act), out of the total capital gains of INR 275,20,00,000 arising pursuant to capital ... hands of the Appellant by holding that section 115-0 of the Act does not apply in case of deemed dividend as per section 2(22)(d) of the Act and hence, dividend as per section 2(22)(d) of the Act is not exempt under section

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.S. AnanthanFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Crores has been considered by the assessee as dividend to the extent of accumulated profits possessed by CHIPL as per the provisions of Section 2(22)(d) of the Act and the same has been duly subjected to dividend distribution tax. The remaining sum of Rs.29.67 Crores has been considered

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI vs. VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3171/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

company by giving up its right to obtain the true value of its shares transferred, we do not agree because the provisions of section 2(22)(d) r.w.s.115O of the Act would not apply in the hands of the assessee, since the shareholders have received the money in lieu ... would not apply in the hands of the assessee who has brought back this shares and in any eventuality, the very provision of section 2(22)(d) of the Act also craved out exception i.e., “dividend”. In our view, the assessee has not received any property being shares

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

dividend under section 2(22) of the Act. 19. In connection with the contention that the payments to AFPI is dividend under section 2(22)(d) the ld AR submitted that section 2(22)(d) states that any distribution made to the shareholders of the company on reduction of capital ... surplus assets on liquidation and a preference shareholder is not entitled to participate in the surplus assets on liquidation. Therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act is not applicable and hence no DDT is payable. ITA Nos.1357 & 1358/Bang/2018 Page 15 of 19 20. The CIT(Appeals

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

JP MORGAN FUNDS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2430/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(b)Section 250

scheme of capital reduction and the difference between the face values was paid to the shareholders. The Supreme Court held that as per section 2(22)(d) of the Act, the payment which represented accumulated profits should be regarded as dividend and taxed accordingly. The balance amounts (representing