← 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

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

ITA 809/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

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

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

ITA 808/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

Ravindra Khandelwal, Akola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Akola, Akola

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

ITA 403/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 36Section 68Section 69A

perusal. Your kindness may also appreciate that KJAPL is subject to audit u/s 44AB of the Act. Even from the perspective of applicability of deemed dividend, the assessee always had credit balance in the books of KJAPL. The amount received by him from KJAPL was out of the existing credit ... balance. Hence, the question of applicability of deemed dividend doesn't arise. Unsecured loans taken in personal capacity The assessee has taken unsecured loans in personal capacity from friends and family during the year under consideration. As discussed above as well, the loans were in turn used to support

Ramesh Nagindas Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1482/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

passed u/s 250 passed on 15-7-2019 for A.Y.2013-14 by CIT(A)- 5, A'bad upholding the addition of Rs.25,93,812/- as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) and Rs.20,000/- towards house property income is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice ... section 2(22)(e) in respect of Rs.65,22,947/- taken by the appellant from Mahavir Submersible P Ltd. and holding the as deemed dividend and thereby making an addition to the extent of accumulated profit of Rs. 2593,812/-. Ramesh Ngaindas Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year

Saket Kanoi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

creates a fiction to make UTI as a deemed company and distribution of the income received by the unitholder as deemed dividend, by virtue of these deeming provisions it cannot be said that it a/so makes the unit of UTI a deemed share. A deeming provision of this nature

Mr. Akbar Abdulali, Prop. Faiz and Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 521/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailakbar Humayun Abdulali, Prop. Faize & Company, Unit No.5, Alahi Baug, 75, Abdul Rehman Stree, ……………. Appellant Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400003 Pan: Aabps6866F

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 3

assessment year 2011-12. 2 2. The only grievance of the assessee is against the addition made on account of the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under ... that the assessee has received loans from the company in which it has a substantial shareholding. In order to verify the applicability of the deemed dividend, the assessee was asked to produce the financial statements of the company in which there were positive reserves and surplus. From the financials submitted

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 698/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

issue involved in all these appeals of the revenue is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in deleting the addition made towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We find that the assessee had raised ... accumulated profit of the said concern, he brought to tax a sum of Rs.81,23,481/- in the hands of the assessee as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In appeal, assessee reiterated the explanation furnished in the course, of assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 642/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

issue involved in all these appeals of the revenue is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in deleting the addition made towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We find that the assessee had raised ... accumulated profit of the said concern, he brought to tax a sum of Rs.81,23,481/- in the hands of the assessee as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In appeal, assessee reiterated the explanation furnished in the course, of assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 641/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

issue involved in all these appeals of the revenue is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in deleting the addition made towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We find that the assessee had raised ... accumulated profit of the said concern, he brought to tax a sum of Rs.81,23,481/- in the hands of the assessee as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In appeal, assessee reiterated the explanation furnished in the course, of assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 622/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

issue involved in all these appeals of the revenue is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in deleting the addition made towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We find that the assessee had raised ... accumulated profit of the said concern, he brought to tax a sum of Rs.81,23,481/- in the hands of the assessee as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In appeal, assessee reiterated the explanation furnished in the course, of assessment proceedings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

scheme, the assessee fulfils the conditions of demerger for tax neutrality u/s 2 (19 AA) of the act as well as the chargeability of deemed dividend in the hands of the shareholders of the assessee company. According to us, he is duty-bound to do so. None of the decisions

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

scheme, the assessee fulfils the conditions of demerger for tax neutrality u/s 2 (19 AA) of the act as well as the chargeability of deemed dividend in the hands of the shareholders of the assessee company. According to us, he is duty-bound to do so. None of the decisions

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5826/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Dcit, Circle 27(1), Vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi Block-5, Gripwel House, C-6 & C-7, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (Pan: Aaacu0454D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyen Sethi, Advocate Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 04.06.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)-9 is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,43,40,824/- made as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act on account of various amounts received from wholly owned subsidiary” 2. With regard to ground no.1 which ... Taxmann.com 289 (Del.). Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. With regard to ground no.2 relating to issue of deemed dividend, the relevant facts brought to our notice by the ld. DR for the Revenue are that during assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has received

Smt. Priya Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are disposed off as under:-

ITA 155/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 153 To 155/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Priya Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ackpa6762B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has erred in adding an amount of Rs. 2,55,700/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) without correctly appreciating the facts of the case. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend ... Ground No.1 is general in nature. 5. Ground No. 2 of appeal is against the addition of Rs. 2,55,700/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 6. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has given

Smt. Priya Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are disposed off as under:-

ITA 154/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 153 To 155/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Priya Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ackpa6762B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has erred in adding an amount of Rs. 2,55,700/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) without correctly appreciating the facts of the case. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend ... Ground No.1 is general in nature. 5. Ground No. 2 of appeal is against the addition of Rs. 2,55,700/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 6. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has given

Smt. Priya Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are disposed off as under:-

ITA 153/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 153 To 155/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Priya Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ackpa6762B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 has erred in adding an amount of Rs. 2,55,700/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) without correctly appreciating the facts of the case. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend ... Ground No.1 is general in nature. 5. Ground No. 2 of appeal is against the addition of Rs. 2,55,700/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 6. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has given

Mr. V.P Abdul Kareem, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 846/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the V.P. Abdul Kareem AO amounting to Rs. 31,81,328/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 4. In the present case, the assessment was framed ... r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as detailed below: - (i) Advance to Director Rs. 12,66,741/- (ii) Advance towards purchase of property Rs. 19,15,087/- 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld

Mr. V.P Abdul Kareem, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 845/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the V.P. Abdul Kareem AO amounting to Rs. 31,81,328/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 4. In the present case, the assessment was framed ... r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as detailed below: - (i) Advance to Director Rs. 12,66,741/- (ii) Advance towards purchase of property Rs. 19,15,087/- 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld

Mr. V.P Abdul Kareem, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 844/COCH/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the V.P. Abdul Kareem AO amounting to Rs. 31,81,328/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 4. In the present case, the assessment was framed ... r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as detailed below: - (i) Advance to Director Rs. 12,66,741/- (ii) Advance towards purchase of property Rs. 19,15,087/- 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld

Purnendu Roy, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

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

order passed U/s 250 is bad in law to the extent that the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified and incorrect in upholding addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Purnendu Roy; A.Y. 2015-16 Income Tax Act. 1961 amounting to Rs.2,99,87,804/-ignoring facts ... ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 03. The sole issue involved in this appeal is regarding the addition of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,99,87,804/- confirmed by ld. CIT (A). 04. Briefly stated facts are that assessee