← All Phrases

“deemed dividend”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 2(22)(e)Section 2(22)(e)749 judgments

The decision most relied on for deemed dividend is CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (340 ITR 14), cited in 202 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deemed dividend

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
340 ITR 14 · 2012 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT
338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.
318 ITR 476 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances or amounts advanced for bona fide business transactions, driven by commercial expediency, do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raj Kumar
318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
324 ITR 263 · 2010 · High Court
111
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of the beneficial shareholder who receives the benefit of the loan or advance, and not in the hands of the company receiving the loan.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah
290 ITR 433 · 2007 · Supreme Court
99
citing judgments

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.

Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.
318 ITR 376 · 2009 · High Court
81
citing judgments

The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) regarding deemed dividends do not apply to transactions between a shareholder and a company that create mutual benefits and obligations, such as trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions.

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT
229 ITR 444 · 1998 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

Judgments citing deemed dividend

Mehrunnisan Sherwani, Okhla vs. Income Tax Officer W 28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4728/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

Other Appeals ground no. 1 of appeal. Consequently, the corresponding ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal in ground no. 17 is dismissed. Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act:- 54. The AO made addition of Rs.70,61,83,347/- u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act in respect ... from Sahra India Financial Corporation Ltd. (SIFCL). The AO held that the amount received by the assessee from SIFCL was chargeable to tax as Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act as Mr. Subrata Roy held majority share holding in both the companies. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

Subhash Chander Oberoi, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax - 26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsubhash Chander Oberoi, Saidham Building, Dr. Jawkar Lane, Sion Chunabhatti Road, Mumbai - 400022 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Aadpo9185B V/S Acit, 26(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

prayed for.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made by treating the amount received by the assessee as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record ... During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause why the advance received from the said company should not be treated as deemed dividend as per the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that he holds 35% shares

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 153DSection 263

both the addl. CIT while granting approval u/s 153D as well as Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceeding have examined the issue of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act at the hands of assessee in relation to the advance shown in his name in the books

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)

ABOVE-MENTIONED GROUND OF 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

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)

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 ... 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)(e) of the Act. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

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 ... 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)(e) of the Act. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

ITA 5733/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 132ASection 153A

which resulted in addition CO Nos. 196 & 197/Del/2018 ACIT Vs. Krishan Kant Kohli against the Assessee. The additions have been made on account of deemed dividends in the hands of the Assessee. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) approved the view taken ... seized during the course of search proceedings which resulted in addition against the Assessee and the additions have been made on account of deemed dividends in the hands of the Assessee, we find no merit in appeals of the Revenue, accordingly, ITA Nos. 5732/Del/2018 and 5733/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue

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

ITA 5732/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 132ASection 153A

which resulted in addition CO Nos. 196 & 197/Del/2018 ACIT Vs. Krishan Kant Kohli against the Assessee. The additions have been made on account of deemed dividends in the hands of the Assessee. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) approved the view taken ... seized during the course of search proceedings which resulted in addition against the Assessee and the additions have been made on account of deemed dividends in the hands of the Assessee, we find no merit in appeals of the Revenue, accordingly, ITA Nos. 5732/Del/2018 and 5733/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd., Chennai

Appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/CHNY/2024[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.404/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd, Corporate Ward 3(1) 761, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaact 1230A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. S. Nagarajan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

applicable in assessee's own case. 4. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee wrt addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee is not a share holder in M/s. MCTM Corporation ... payment is received by HUF and Karta, who is shareholder in lending company, has substantial interest in HUF, payment made to HUF shall constitute deemed dividend in HUF's hand as per Explanation 3 to section 2(22)(e). 8. For these and other grounds that may be adduced

Raj Hemant Shroff, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 986/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Hemant Shroff Acit-6(1)(1), Mumbai 11, Vallabh Apartments, Bhulabhai Vs Desai Road Breach Candy, Mumbai-400036. Pan: Aacps 5875 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

making an addition amounting to Rs. 4,11,06,941/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act as deemed dividend without appreciating that the funds received by the appellant were neither ‘loan’ nor ‘advance’. 3.2 The appellant prays that the said addition ... from the companies in which he was having substantial interest. Therefore, the assessing officer treated the receipt of Rs. 4,11,06,941/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. The assessee filed appeal before

The Green Triveni Developer, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(5), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 3431/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)

short term capital gains addition of Rs. 20,84,804/- only to the extent that it represents an instance of double addition regarding his deemed dividend etc. 2 3. Faced with this situation the Revenue’s case is that once the assessee is only seeking to delete double addition

Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2402/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2402/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 8599, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, Circle-13(1), New Delhi-110005 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn8112G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 22.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1063146918(1) In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

have held the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of its taxable income which included the corresponding quantum additions/disallowance of section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend, rates and tax, ROC fees and diversion of interest; 2 Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd. involving very sums, made in the assessment order dated

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

that was not disclosed. Additional unrecorded investments were found, amounting to Rs. 45,768/-, which further added to the total income of the assessee. Deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) were also included, with Rs. 19,00,105/- being added from GSPPL and Rs. 10,00,000/- from NIIP ... These amounts were treated as deemed dividends, which had to be included in the taxable income under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of a deduction under Section 80G, amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. This disallowance was made because the necessary

Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1824/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd….…………………………………………….…..……Appellant 20, B. T. Road, Kolkata-700002. [Pan: Aadcp7251J] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata..............….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return On 24.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.83,95,690/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Were Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Was Completed On 29.12.2011 With A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.93,95,690/-. Later On, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received A Loan Of Rs.2,11,39,885/- From M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. During The Relevant Financial Year. Both The Assessee & M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. Has Common Shareholders Namely Shri Haranjit Singh & Mr. Subash Bera Holding More Than 10% Of The Share Capital In Both Companies. The Assessing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 263

section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the loans provided by a company to another entity with common significant shareholders are treated as deemed dividend. However, the Assessing Officer failed to address this issue in the original assessment order. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has sent proposal for revision ... applicable. However, the Assessing Officer disagreed with the argument of the assessee stating that the loan qualified as a deemed dividend because Shri Haranjit Singh and Mr. Subash Bera each holding over 10% of the shares in both companies. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer added Rs.2

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)

therefore, the loan so advanced to the extent of ` 8,90,70,728, is liable to be assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 5. During re–assessment proceeding, the assessee objected to the proposed addition on two grounds ... applicable. Assessee further submitted that as per the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, addition of deemed dividend can only be made to the extent lender company possesses accumulated profit on the date of giving loan. It was submitted that SSIL gave

Sudesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 284/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2013-14 Sudesh Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle 5(1), B-15, Kalindi Colony, Opp. Room No. G-15-B, C.R. Maharani Bagh, Building, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi (Pan: Aahpg5645G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

Prior to this, AO made the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 on 24.11.2016. Addition of deemed dividend was made of Rs. 1,29,53,126/- u/s. 2(22)(e). The assessee was a common share holder in two companies – Kushang Technologies Ltd. (KTL) and Biggesto Technologies Ltd. (BTL). The share

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)

unaccounted cash receipts only. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition made in the assessment order towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of Rs.241,82,77,339/- for the purpose of levy of dividend distribution ... section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that deemed dividend is not attracted when the payments to recipient companies were utilized by them for the purpose of their business and were not utilized/diverted

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)

unaccounted cash receipts only. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition made in the assessment order towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of Rs.241,82,77,339/- for the purpose of levy of dividend distribution ... section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that deemed dividend is not attracted when the payments to recipient companies were utilized by them for the purpose of their business and were not utilized/diverted

The ITO, Trivandrum vs. Shri.Xavi Mano Mathews, Trivandrum

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 26/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

basis of evidence produced/explanation made during appeal proceedings and also erred in deleting a part of addition made by the A.O towards Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of IT Act 2. The deletion of Rs.1,98,86,558/- limited to the extend AO has conceded in remand report ... Rs.3,99,906/- and Rs.26,00,000/- out of addition of Rs.1,80,60,000/-, Rs.4,82,094/- and Rs.27,00,000/- respectively. 4. Deemed Dividend Lt.CIT(A) ought to have noted that as per section 2(22)(e) the dividend include any payment (total sum of receipt) made

Hareendran Nair Janardhanan Nair, Trivandrum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

ITA 810/COCH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Arti, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

paras. 5. Lastly comes the assessee’s second substantive ground in A.Y. 2019-20 challenging both the lower authorities action making 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs.39,75,762/-, 4 ITA Nos.808 to 810/Coch/2023. Hareendran Nair Janardhanan Nair in the course of assessment as upheld ... impugned addition made in both the lower proceedings. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the instant last issue of deemed dividend also requires the CIT(A)/NFAC’s fresh adjudication and factual verification to the limited extent to examine the assessee’s plea of current