deemed dividend — 749 case laws

Ambey Capital Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2195/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usambey Capital Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-2, Ambey House, 34/1, East Circle-2(2), Punjabi Bagh, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabct6631J

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,36,95,583/- made by the ld AO on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Ambey Capital Pvt. Ltd 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused ... accordingly, the outstanding balance of Rs. 1,36,96,583/- standing as unsecured loan from ALPL was sought to be added as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act while completing the assessment. This action of the ld AO was upheld

Vijay Chimaji Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(5), Pune

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1061/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

that the NFAC’s order herein under challenge; upholding the Assessing 2 ITA.Nos.1061 & 1062/PUN./2023 Officer’s identical action making sec.2(22)(e) deemed dividend additions, involving varying sums have been passed ex-parte. 3. Learned counsel submitted that on account of lack of communication between the assessee

Vijay Chimaji Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(5), Pune

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1060/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

that the NFAC’s order herein under challenge; upholding the Assessing 2 ITA.Nos.1061 & 1062/PUN./2023 Officer’s identical action making sec.2(22)(e) deemed dividend additions, involving varying sums have been passed ex-parte. 3. Learned counsel submitted that on account of lack of communication between the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

only effective common ground raised in these appeals relates to 3 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 deletion of addition made towards deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee holding that the conditions prescribed in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were ... held that the said payment of ₹.88,91,90,240/- made to the assessee company falls under the scope of “Deemed Dividend” since the same represents a payment made by M/s. IG3 Infra Limited on behalf of or for the individual benefit of its shareholders i.e. Shri Shanmugam Thiagarajan

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

only effective common ground raised in these appeals relates to 3 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 deletion of addition made towards deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee holding that the conditions prescribed in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were ... held that the said payment of ₹.88,91,90,240/- made to the assessee company falls under the scope of “Deemed Dividend” since the same represents a payment made by M/s. IG3 Infra Limited on behalf of or for the individual benefit of its shareholders i.e. Shri Shanmugam Thiagarajan

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

only effective common ground raised in these appeals relates to 3 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 deletion of addition made towards deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee holding that the conditions prescribed in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were ... held that the said payment of ₹.88,91,90,240/- made to the assessee company falls under the scope of “Deemed Dividend” since the same represents a payment made by M/s. IG3 Infra Limited on behalf of or for the individual benefit of its shareholders i.e. Shri Shanmugam Thiagarajan

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

only effective common ground raised in these appeals relates to 3 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 deletion of addition made towards deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee holding that the conditions prescribed in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were ... held that the said payment of ₹.88,91,90,240/- made to the assessee company falls under the scope of “Deemed Dividend” since the same represents a payment made by M/s. IG3 Infra Limited on behalf of or for the individual benefit of its shareholders i.e. Shri Shanmugam Thiagarajan

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

only effective common ground raised in these appeals relates to 3 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 deletion of addition made towards deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee holding that the conditions prescribed in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were ... held that the said payment of ₹.88,91,90,240/- made to the assessee company falls under the scope of “Deemed Dividend” since the same represents a payment made by M/s. IG3 Infra Limited on behalf of or for the individual benefit of its shareholders i.e. Shri Shanmugam Thiagarajan

Apeejay Surrendre Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 988/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

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

issue involved in the two appeals is in respect of addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) towards deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act for the sum received by the assessee from another group company. We take ITA No. 987/Kol/2023 ... lender was Rs.3691 lakhs. Ld. AO thus, in view of these facts treated the amount of loans/advances received by the assessee from APL as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act since there was a common shareholding by KSWPL having substantial interest in both APL and ASMSPL. Assessee

Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

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

issue involved in the two appeals is in respect of addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) towards deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act for the sum received by the assessee from another group company. We take ITA No. 987/Kol/2023 ... lender was Rs.3691 lakhs. Ld. AO thus, in view of these facts treated the amount of loans/advances received by the assessee from APL as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act since there was a common shareholding by KSWPL having substantial interest in both APL and ASMSPL. Assessee

Deeptti Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-7 (1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

given for purchase of property and Rs. 8,50,000/- was opening balance which cannot be treated as deemed dividend. The act of confirming such addition by the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and illegal as it is against the circular 19/2017 issued by the board and judicial pronouncements ... actual outgo or flow of money from AIPL to the assessee shareholder, a mere entry to create debt could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of G.R. Govindarajulu Naidu

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 478/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

income and thereafter deduction has been granted. The facts mentioned above clearly establish that the Assessee Society is entitled to getting credit for the deemed dividend tax by virtue of the provisions of DTAA read with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 together with the clarifications issued

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 477/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

income and thereafter deduction has been granted. The facts mentioned above clearly establish that the Assessee Society is entitled to getting credit for the deemed dividend tax by virtue of the provisions of DTAA read with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 together with the clarifications issued

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1043/DEL/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

income and thereafter deduction has been granted. The facts mentioned above clearly establish that the Assessee Society is entitled to getting credit for the deemed dividend tax by virtue of the provisions of DTAA read with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 together with the clarifications issued

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1042/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

income and thereafter deduction has been granted. The facts mentioned above clearly establish that the Assessee Society is entitled to getting credit for the deemed dividend tax by virtue of the provisions of DTAA read with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 together with the clarifications issued

Kamala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1125/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40

extent of Rs. 96,77,576/- in the hands of assessee. Similarly, the ld. AO added entire sum of Rs. 11,35,000/- as deemed dividend in the hands of assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the other grounds

Sukhibhava Builders and Developers Private Limited, Kukatpally vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Vishakaptanam

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

ITA 239/VIZ/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sukhibhava Builders & Developers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd Income Tax H.No.Mig-111, Ground Floor Circle-4(1) Road No.1, Kphp Colony Visakhapatnam Kukatpally, Hyderabad [Pan : Aancs3916K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Sukhibhava Real Estate Private Limited (a group concern having common shareholders) as 5 I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2023, A.Y.2012-13 Sukhibhava Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd.,Hyderabad deemed dividend in the hands of assessee company is unsustainable both in law and on facts. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend alter

Lakshmi Mendalu Narayan Rao Naidu, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 69C

shall now take up the appeal filed for AY 2012-13. The assessee is challenging the addition of Rs.14,85,000/- made as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. According to the AO, the assessee is a director in a closely held company named M/s Bhddheshwar Estates ... advance of Rs.14,85,000/-, besides salary of Rs.1,30,000/-. The AO took the view that the above said advance is assessable as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and (AYs: 2013-14, 2012-13 & 2011-12) Lakshmi Mendalu Narayan Rao Naidu vs. NFAC accordingly

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Star Line Leasing Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1973/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 2(22)(e)Section 7

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act after making an addition of INR 1,82,09,39,092/- holding the same to be deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(a) of the Act. The aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the CIT(A) vide order

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

distribution to its shareholders by a company on the reduction of its capital to the extent of distributable profit is to be treated as deemed dividend. Accordingly, of the total amount repatriated, CAD 19,68,000 is apportioned towards deemed dividend and CAD 7,80,32,000 being in excess ... Accountants. Of the total amount repatriated by ICICI Bank Canada amounting to CAD 8,00,00,000, CAD 19,68,000 is apportioned towards deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act and CAD 7,80,32,000 being in excess of its accumulated profits

“deemed dividend”

Leading authorities on deemed dividend

Judgments citing deemed dividend

Ambey Capital Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Vijay Chimaji Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(5), Pune

Vijay Chimaji Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(5), Pune

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

Apeejay Surrendre Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

Deeptti Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-7 (1), New Delhi

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, New Delhi

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd, Delhi

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., Delhi

Kamala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata

Sukhibhava Builders and Developers Private Limited, Kukatpally vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Vishakaptanam

Lakshmi Mendalu Narayan Rao Naidu, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Star Line Leasing Limited, Mumbai

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai