← 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

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

interest of revenue on the ground that the unsecured loan received from M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt Ltd should have been treated as deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no incriminating material was found in the course of the search ... Construction Company Private Limited as loan, wherein Shri Heera Lal Jaiswal was a common shareholder. Hence, such loan should have been treated as Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is reproduced as under

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Atul Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2803/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54B

should not be invoked. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned amount of Rs.71,08,35,311/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act with the observation that assessee had not filed relevant supporting documentary evidence to explain the above issue. 8. Further, he observed from ... detailed submissions by the above said amounts remitted to the relative concerns and prayed that the loans are not fall under the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 10. Further, assessee has submitted a chart indicating the position of reserves and surpluses at the year

Sh. Atul Bansal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2737/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54B

should not be invoked. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned amount of Rs.71,08,35,311/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act with the observation that assessee had not filed relevant supporting documentary evidence to explain the above issue. 8. Further, he observed from ... detailed submissions by the above said amounts remitted to the relative concerns and prayed that the loans are not fall under the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 10. Further, assessee has submitted a chart indicating the position of reserves and surpluses at the year

Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1) (Previously DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalincome-Tax Officer, Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Vs. Ward 7(2)(1), 1, Friends Colony, Sm Road, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan: Acups 2559 J] (Previously Dcit, Cir. 1(1)(2)) (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 80G

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering repayment of deposit by the company of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the appellant as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act and thereby confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 2. That ... various reason advanced by leaned CIT(A) in considering repayment of deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act are contrary to the facts of the case and the evidence on records. That the learned CIT(A) has misconstrued the provisions

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune vs. Sachin Govind Apte, Pune

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 54F

case and in law the Hon‟ble CTI (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made on account of deemed dividend u/s Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961? ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... relevant to real Estate 7 ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] Business of the said company. Hence, Ld.CIT(A) held that these amounts were not qualifying for deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. 9. We have perused the Ledger Accounts of the Assessee in the Books of the Company i.e.Empire Shelters

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 5400/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,75,937/-on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act 2. The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits ... raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions on account deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we have to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 5399/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,75,937/-on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act 2. The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits ... raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions on account deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we have to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 5398/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,75,937/-on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act 2. The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits ... raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions on account deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we have to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 5397/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,75,937/-on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act 2. The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits ... raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions on account deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we have to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 5396/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,75,937/-on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act 2. The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits ... raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions on account deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we have to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 5395/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,75,937/-on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act 2. The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits ... raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions on account deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we have to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard

M/S. Centrix Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6637/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S. Centrix Technologies Vs. Ito-Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited. (Old Jurisdiction-Ito-W1(4), Hyderabad), 7Th Floor, Office No.715, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400020. Samarth Aishwarya, Mumbai-400053. Pan/Gir No:Aabcc7117Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 40

erred in bringing to tax the amount of advances received by the Appellant company from another company as deemed dividend U/s2(22)(e) even where the Appellant company is not holding any share capital in the other company. The Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have considered that "Deemed Dividend

Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 4485/MUM/2025[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 1995-96 Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Ito Ward 4 (3)(2), 411, Kewal Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Karve Road, New Marine Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Lines, Mumbai - 400020 Pan – Aaapz0864D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, SR. D.R
Section 250Section 58A

business of the said company and advances given in the ordinary course of such business, are required to be excluded from the ambit of deemed dividend under Section 2(22) (e) of the Act. 8. Having heard the parties and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival claims of the parties

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-18, Delhi on 28.01.2019 on the ground that income on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. In response to the said notice, the Appellant filed return of income ... facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition of Rs. 8,88,00,139/- on account of deemed dividend from Quantum Securities under provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-18, Delhi on 28.01.2019 on the ground that income on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. In response to the said notice, the Appellant filed return of income ... facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition of Rs. 8,88,00,139/- on account of deemed dividend from Quantum Securities under provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cargil India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5786/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, Circle5(2), Vs. M/S Cargil India Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi -110001 111 Rectangle–I Saket District Centre New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc3269J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

against the return loss of Rs.119,86,47,680/- with the following additions/ disallowances; (i) Discounting charges amounting to Rs.5,72,77,093/- (ii) Deemed dividend amounting to Rs.40,89,99,750/- (iii) Interest expenses amounting to Rs.9,5392,316/- (iv) Depreciation on computer accessories amounting to Rs.75 ... order dated 08-08-2014 partly allowed the appeal and deleted the additions/disallowances relating to discounting charges amounting to Rs.5,72,77,093/-, deemed dividend amounting to Rs.40,89,99,750/- and addition on account of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act restricted to Rs.93,54,162/- instead

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Madineni Sitaramaiah, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

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

substantial accumulated profits of the company. (v) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO has restricted the addition towards "deemed dividend" to the extent of the accumulated profits of the company. (vi). Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing ... 225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28th November, 2018. 2 The learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have considered that the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend in the hands of Assessee was never part of reasons for limited scrutiny and thus making such addition is not valid since no prior

Nand Kishore Malhan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5674/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5674/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Malhan, Vs Dcit, J-3, 3Rd Floor, Saket, Circle-22(2), New Delhi-110017 C.R. Building, Ito, Ip Esate, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahvpm7964R Assessee By: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Ahemadabad’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1078966067(1) Dated 28.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

assessee/appellant herein raises his sole substantive grievance directed against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits of Rs.18,45,500/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act; in assessment order dated 30.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 2 Nand Kishore Malhan ... having accumulated profits, the impugned deeming fiction of dividends could not have been invoked by both the learned lower authorities. The impugned deemed dividend addition is deleted in very terms therefore. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/12/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial

DCIT Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 5793/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

ACIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation, Kolkata

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

ITA 2369/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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