“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

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

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

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

Pukhraj Shreemalji Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3255/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pukhraj Shreemalji Jain, Ito Ward 19(2)(4), 8, Ground Floor, Guru Rajendra Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Vs. House, 137, Tp Street, 6Th Mumbai-400012. Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aajpj 8080 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: 12/08/2024

Section 2(22)(e)

notice to the assessee as why the said assessee as why the said loan amount should not be amount should not be treated as deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. No reply was deemed dividend in terms of section ... reply was deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. No reply was filed by the assessee in response to the show cause notice and filed by the assessee in response to the show cause notice and filed by the assessee in response to the show

Life Span Infrastructure ( India) Pvt Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward 2(5), Trivandrum

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 139/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Life Span Infrastructure (India) The Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward - 2(5), Trivandrum Tc-4/2554(3), Indraprastham Vs. Pattom P.O. Kowdiar Road Trivandrum 695004 [Pan: Aabcl7856M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,50,000/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the instant case ... company, Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thus, accordingly the Revenue treated the amount of loan received by the assessee from Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 319/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.319/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.2/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.319/Hyd/2022) A.Y 2015-16 Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

between two companies and cannot be considered as loan. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant fact assessed Rs.16,16,920/- being profit/reserve as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned ... additions made by the Assessing Page 5 of 12 ITA No 319 of 2022 and SA No.2 of 2024 Ishoo Narang Officer towards deemed dividend. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of provisions of section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Kozhikode vs. N K Mohammed Ali and Bros, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 244/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle 1(1) N.K. Mohammed Ali & Bros Aayakar Bhavan 6/1183 Kunhipari Building Mananchra Vs. Cherootty Road Kozhikode 673001 Calicut 673032 [Pan: Aacfn9210H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

appeal the Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds of appeal: - “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the addition of deemed dividend cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. 2 N.K. Mohammed Ali and Bros 2. The CIT (A) in the order dated ... Assessing Officer restored.” 3. Both the parties invited our attention to the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion deleting section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition reading as under: - “5. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order, grounds of appeal and written submission, details/documents furnished

Johar Hasan Zojwalla, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56(2)(i)

Properties Private Limited, not appreciating that such advance was on account of a business transaction and therefore outside the ambit of the provisions of deemed dividend as contained in section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act 1961 and therefore addition u/s 56(2)(i) was not merited ... were initiated as the payment of ₹ 29,80,340 received by the assessee as an unsecured loan comes under the ambit of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the same has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2016

ACIT Corp Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Amtex Info Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 546/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.546/Chny/2018 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Amtex Info Solutions Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd., Plot No.54, 27Th Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095. [Pan: Aaica 6676K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : None JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Suresh. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.12.2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer [A.O] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh. JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.6.56 crores made by the AO treating the loan received by the assessee as deemed dividend u/s.2(22) (e) of the Act. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section ... loan transaction entered between the assessee company and its related concern, without appreciating the fact that the advances can only be treated as deemed dividend. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Apex Court decision in the case of Madhur Housing & Development Company (Civil Appeal

Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3794/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Moni Kumar Subba Vs. Acit 118, Subba Farm House, Central Circle – 08, Vill. Sultanpur, Mehrauli New Delhi Gurgaon Road Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Aasps 1484 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A. Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Shri Rajat Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

attributable to security deposits. (iii) Additions were made under section 2(22)(e) of the Act holding receipt of certain loans and advances as ‘deemed dividend’. 4. The CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings, deleted the additions on account of enhanced rental income and deemed dividend

Sagar Fibres Pvt. Ltd., Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 57/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

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

identical with both holding more than 10% of voting power. Therefore the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- should have been treated as Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee. The AO has not raised this issue at all in the assessment proceedings

Virender Singh Asst Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Uday Achyuth Kamath, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3720/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 2(22)(e)

declaring a total income of Rs. 3,46,61,079/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reasons to believe escapement of income towards deemed dividend of Rs. 3,48,99,462/- as per the section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Accordingly, the AO issued notice ... response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B by making addition towards deemed dividend of Rs. 3,48,99,462/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition for the reason that the assessee has preferred writ before

Ashok Harilal Tanna, Kalyan vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3 Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 3131/MUM/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

partner in a few partnership firms and also Director in few private limited companies. 3. The first issue relates to the addition of deemed dividend made by the AO u/s.2(22)(e)of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee is one of the Directors in the following private ... shares holding not less than 10% of voting power or to a concern in which such shareholder is a member, shall be treated as “deemed dividend” to the extent of accumulated profits possessed by the paying company. Since the assessee is holding more than 10% of voting rights

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Yellow Sapphire International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3467/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 212Section 56Section 56(1)

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,74,625/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of accumulated profits in the companies at the time of advancement of loans to the assessee ... which are extending the loans therefore the conditions specified in section 2(22) (e) are satisfied and the alleged loans are nothing but the deemed dividend. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Kumar, CIT-DR

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

Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2016 making addition of Rs.16,68,33,979/- on account of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act and determining the total income at Rs.1,73,27,711/-. The addition was made ... have expressed diverse views, the jurisdictional HC in the case of M/s Siddeswari Power Generation Pvt Ltd in ITTA No.705,400 & 541 opined that deemed dividend provisions can be applied to the share holder only. The department has contested before the Supreme Court against the case of Siddeswari Power Generation

Svm Cera Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1). Kolkata., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 974/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer has not referred to any incriminating material and the disclosure made by the assessee has been accepted and only an addition for deemed dividend made on the basis of details furnished during the post search scrutiny proceedings. However, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section

Svm Cera Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 973/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Hirenkumar Lavjibhai Kanani, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 522/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

initiated for the limited scrutiny purpose of verifying the applicability of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which deals with "Deemed Dividend". The Assessing Officer (AO), after considering the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee, made an addition ... income of the assessee, treating it as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act, alleging that the AO had not properly examined two issues: 1. Cash deposits amounting to Rs. 6.12 lakhs

M/S Indian Clothing League Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 372/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 has erred in upholding Share Application Money received as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) in the hands of the Assessee Company without correctly appreciating the facts and the laid down law on the matter. 3. That ... Ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the share application money received as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in the hands of the assessee. In this regard, we have carefully pursued

Income Tax Officer TDS-1, Vadodara vs. Aarav Reality Private Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2012-13 Ito, Tds-1 Aarav Reality Private Limited Vadodara. Vs 201, Payal Complex Opp: M.S. University Sayajiganj Vadodara 390 005. Pan : (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 250

default for not having deducted TDS on amounts received by it by way of loan from M/s Aarav Reality P.Ltd., treating it as deemed dividend in its hand in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act ,was overturned by the ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made ... ld.counsel for the assessee that the order of the ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made in the hands of the assessee of deemed dividend had been confirmed by the ITAT in its order passed in ITA No.1383/Ahd/2019 dated 20.5.2024. A copy of the order was placed before me. He, therefore

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

April, 2003 would be 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 ... Section 2, but 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

Sri. Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234

circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,95,37,070/- as deemed dividend u/s. 2[22][e] of the Act in the hands of the appellant without appreciating that the provisions of section ... investment in Sopromer S.A.R.L, a Conakry entity was made in the earlier financial year 2015-16 and therefore, the same cannot be considered as deemed dividend for the year under appeal by virtue of the allotment of shares in United Fishmeal FZC in the name of the appellant and therefore

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Vinod Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 638/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.638/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

since the assessee happens to be a Director /shareholder holding more than 10% of the shareholding, learned Assessing Officer treated the same as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), stating that in spite of calling for and allowing sufficient time