← All Phrases

“Section 2(22)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(22)(c)15 judgments

SNEHAL RAVJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 1418/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.56,09,615/- as income being deemed dividend under the Provisions of Section 2(22)(c) of the income tax Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the addition made of Rs.56,09,615/- being deemed dividend under the Provisions ... Section 2(22)(c) of the income tax Act be deleted. 3. The Appellant prays that the penalty proposed to be levied by the learned AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act is bad in law and needs to be squashed. 4. The Appellant craves leave

VINITA PAWANKUMAR SARAF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1982/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Krupa Jimit Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

company is reduced to 9% from 22% during the F.Y 2012-13. However, as per explanation 3 of clause (b) of section 2(22)(c) 'A person shall be deemed to have a substantial interest in a concern, other than a company, If he is, at any time during

AYAJ S. DHUMAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4519/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ajay S. Dhumal, Ito-26(2)(4), 229/230, Arun Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacpd 7035 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi
Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

afterthought and probably done with the view to escape provisions to afterthought and probably done with the view to escape provisions to section 2(22)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as assessment proceedings in 22)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as assessment proceedings in 22)(c ... assessee being majority shareholder was being majority shareholder was clearly in default of the provision of the section 2(22)(c). clearly in default of the provision of the section 2(22)(c). I accordingly, accordingly, conform the addition of Rs.16,00,000/ conform the addition of Rs.16

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

ITA 428/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48Section 50Section 50(1)Section 50A

Urmila Ramesh [1998] 230 ITR 422 (SC) rendered in the context of provisions of section 41(2) read with provisions of section 2(22)(c) of the Act. 11 PVT Tourist Home 14. In the above terms, the appeal filed by Revenue stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

erred by not appreciating the facts that the case of the assessee company falls under all conditions mentioned in section 2(22)(c) of the Act. (vi) The appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify the grounds of appeal.” Legal Issue relating to the validity of Assessment Order : The assessee vide Ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

nCIT(A) has erred by not appreciating the facts that the case of the\nassessee company falls under all conditions mentioned in section 2(22)(c)\nof the Act.\n(vi) The appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify the grounds of\nappeal.”\nLegal Issue relating to the validity of Assessment Order

SMS TOLLS AND DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Assessing Officer not to include the current profit to be part of accumulated profit while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(c) of the Act. While determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(c) of the Act, the current profit

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 304/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Shri AMARJIT SINGH

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 193/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Shri AMARJIT SINGH

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 167/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Shri AMARJIT SINGH

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 166/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Shri AMARJIT SINGH

PP JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-25, DELHI

ITA 2449/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarpp Jewellers Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc – 25, H-05, Pp Tower, Delhi. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aaacp0874G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ss Nagar, Advocate Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By : Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Order : 29.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahyathis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)- 29, New Delhi Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Disallowance, Imposition Of Tax & Interest With Reference Thereto, The Quantification Of Taxable Income & The Tax Liability, Has Been Grossly Unjustified, Erroneous & Unsustainable & Necessary Direction Be Given To The Ao To Give Appropriate Relief In Accordance With Law. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit- (A) Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On Account

For Appellant: Shri SS Nagar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'E' BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSHRI GAGAN GOYAL

YOGESH MEHRA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhyogesh Mehra Vs. Pcit-2 201, Hare Krishna Room No. 1920, Building, Presidency Air India Building, Society, North South Mumbai - 400021 Road No. 8, Jvpd, Vile Parle, (West), Mumbai – 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapm6139N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishita MandalagwalaFor Respondent: Heman Kumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 263

ITA No.709/Mum/2022 A.Y.2014-15 1 Yogesh Mehra Vs PCIT-2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

REKHA A BAROT ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 9 (2)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blerekha A. Barot V. Dcit – 9(2)(1) 1, Ground Floor Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Bharat Corporate Avenue Income Tax Near Versova Police Station Mumbai - 400020 D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan: Aenpb5677H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dalpat Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

flat is very high. Therefore, it is clear that the bogey of allotment flat has been merely created to escape the provisions of section 2(22)(c) of the IT Act. In view of this, the A.O. has rightly made the addition u/s 2(22