← All Phrases

“Section 2(22)(c)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 2(22)(c) is Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai (84 Taxmann.com 51), cited in 263 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(22)(c)

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT
34 ITR 342 · 1958 · High Court
29
citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot enhance income on an issue that was not the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings. The appellate authority is empowered to decide any matter arising in the assessment proceedings, even if not raised in the appeal, provided it is covered by the order appealed against.

CIT v. Modi Rubber Ltd.
378 ITR 128 · 2015 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Interest-free advances are presumed to be given out of owned funds, not borrowed funds, if the assessee has sufficient owned funds. The revenue cannot arbitrarily estimate proportionate interest expenditure when the assessee has the right to appropriate funds.

Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT
26 Taxmann.com 330 · 2012 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

Decisions of other Coordinate Benches allowing provisions for standard assets are relevant when considering similar issues, even if a specific bench affirmed the AO's view.

Sunil Chandra Vohra v. ACIT
32 SOT 365 · 2009 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

Ignorance of complex tax laws, such as Section 2(22)(e) related to deemed dividends, can be considered a reasonable cause for deleting penalties for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The complexity of tax laws means that even specialists may not understand them correctly, making it unjust to penalize assessees for such oversights.

ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd.
120 TTJ 865 · 2009 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) can only be taxed in the hands of shareholders who are both registered and beneficial owners of shares in the paying company.

Delhi HC (para 16 to 17 & 22 to 23) 5. PCIT v. I.A. Hydro Energy P. Ltd.
163 Taxmann.com 408 · 2024 · Reported
11
citing judgments

The Departmental Representative argues that the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is not applicable when a company's project has gone off track, as projections lack a basis and credentials/financials are not established.

Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 112 · 1998 · Supreme Court
10
citing judgments

The issuance of bonus shares is merely a capitalization of profits and does not constitute a distribution of profits or a gift to shareholders, as they are essentially receiving certificates entitling them to participate in the company's reserves as part of the capital.

Judgments citing Section 2(22)(c)

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), 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