“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

Deevik Garg, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 38(1), New Delhi

ITA 4318/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediadeevik Garg Vs. Acit E-1/75, Sec-07, Rohini, Circle – 38(1) New Delhi – 110 085 New Delhi Pan No. Adrpg 2815 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

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

owner of 40.58% shares. 6. That Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming addition of Rs.1,11,02,416/- as deemed dividend U/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by Ld. AO which is based on surmises and conjectures, contrary to facts

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd. amounted to Rs.3,20,17,845/-. The assessee was asked to explain as to why not the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act be invoked. The assessee made a detailed submission stating that addition for deemed dividend can be made ... petitions as well as all the issues raised by the Department in the Rule-9 report. He also submitted that the issue regarding deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee

DCIT, Chennai vs. Gemini Traze Rfid Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 875/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.875/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit M/S.Gemini Traze Rfid Private Limited बनाम/ Vs. Corporate Circle-2(1), No.1, Dr.Ranga Road, Chennai-34. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-5226-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Veeraraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri V.Veeraraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(31)

that the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) would apply and the advance so received to the extent of accumulated profits of PRTPL would be deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. It was on the reasoning that there were common shareholders holding more than 20% of shares in both ... entities. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.85.78 Lacs was held to be deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee was not shareholder of PRTPL. The issue was covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras

ACIT-1(2)(1, Mumbai vs. Meriton Infotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 741/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd. G-4, Khetan Bhavan, Acit -1(2)(1) Ek Omkar Premises Co- Room No. 535, Aaykar Ops, Bhavan, Vs. 198, Jamshedji Tata Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecm4348N Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 101Section 115Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

capital gain under Section 46 A of the Act. The reduction of share capital was taxable in the hands of the shareholders as deemed dividend under Section 2(22) of the Act to the extent of accumulated profit and any balance amount was chargeable to tax in the hands ... taxable in the hands of the share holder under Section 2(22)(d)of the Act to the extent of accumulated profit as deemed dividend and balance sum is taxable as capital gain. ix. He further referred to the decision of the co- ordinate Bench in case of Goldman Sachs

ACIT Circle- 61(1), New Delhi vs. Adiish Jain, New Delhi

ITA 284/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle-61(1), New Delhi (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

were almost settled even before initiation of any commercial transaction. This clearly establishes that such transaction are not in nature of trade advances but deemed dividend in the hands of assessee u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal ... whether the Id CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Verizon India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3968/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Verizon India Pvt. Ltd. Circle -26(1), Radisson Commercial Plaza, A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi National Highway-8, New Delhi-110037 Pan : Aaccm2423N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254

directions of the Hon'ble ITAT in respect of the ad-hoc disallowance of travel and conveyance expenses and additions on account of deemed dividend. A copy of the order is attached herewith as Annexure 1. The above order has the effect of reinstating the loss of the assessee back

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1335/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

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

addition u/s 68 of the Act for unsecured loan amounting to Rs.16,73,20,000/-. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of deemed dividend amounting to Rs.15,26,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer also made estimated disallowance @ 10% of the expenses amounting to Rs.2 ... Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) SCC Online SC 481; they are directed to be deleted as such. 14. As regards, the addition on account of deemed dividend is concerned, the assessee during the year, received loan amounting to Rs.15,26,05,000/- from M/s SSG Infratech Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1334/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

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

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1333/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

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

Pawa International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 2723/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawa International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit M-102, Greater Kailash Part- Circle-19 (2) I, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacp6108P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 13.09.2023 By Nfac, Delhi.

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.53808475/- on account of deemed dividend u/s.2 (22)(e) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee company is not a share holder. 3. Briefly stated the facts

S. M. Agro Plantere& Processors Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. Pcir Range-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2015-16 S.M.Agro S.M.Agro Plantere Plantere & & Vs. Pr. Pr. Cit, Cit, Range Range-1, Processors Pvt Ltd., Anand Processors Pvt Ltd., Anand Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bazar, Dhenkanal. Bazar, Dhenkanal. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aagcs 9108 L (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Patnaik , Adv Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023

For Appellant: Shri J.M.PatnaikFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak

Section 14ASection 263Section 7A

income from the manufacture of rubber. It was the further submission that the second issue raised by the Pr. CIT was in respect of deemed dividend u/s.14A on the ground that the assessee has made huge investment in shares and debentures. The 3rd issue was in regard to the loans

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O by way of disallowance of Rs.1,34,83,176/-being non- deduction of tax on deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... also added Rs.1,34,83,176/- for violation of Sec. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on so-called deemed dividend for the amount paid to Shri Sanjay Raheja and Shri Deepak Raheja amounting to Rs. 66,32,406/- and Rs.68,50,770/- respectively, being the maximum amount

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

Guru Nanak Milk Products, Ferozepur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 132/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 250(6)

mind. In this factual interpretation the addition was made u/s I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2(22)(e) related to deemed dividend such shares invested by the assessee to the company where he has the substantial interest. This particular investment is reflected in the books of account

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3565/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

following additions:- (i) Disallowance under section 40A(3) Rs. 4,07,600/- (ii) Disallowance for negative balance Rs. 4,75,075/- (iii) Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) Rs.29,06,914/- 5. The assessee filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under section ... disallowance under section 40A(3) to Rs.4,07,600/- is concerned and sustained the penalty on the disallowance of negative cash balance and deemed dividend under section 2 I.T.A. No. 3565/Del/2017 2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs.4,75,075/- and Rs.29,06,914/- respectively. We observe that

Sreeni Parameswaran, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 186/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

instant appeal is the validity or otherwise in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, of the addition by way of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act for Rs. 62,44,215,since confirmed in the first appeal. 3. The background facts of the case ... Rs.62.44 lakhs owed by him to SHPL as at the year-end, i.e., 31.03.2011, was inferred by the Revenue as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act as his shareholding in SHPL was in excess of 10%, while it had reserves in excess of that sum, which

ACIT Cent. Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sumatichand Gouti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2375/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 68

grievance of the revenue is only with regard to finding in the impugned order on the merits of the individual claim regarding gifts and deemed dividend. However once it is not disputed by the revenue that the decision of this Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra) would

Kanta Gupta, Karnal vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7367/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyaita No.7367 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt. Kanta Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Aefpg 9971 D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No.7368 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Adepk 5887 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 153Section 2(22)(e)

wherein addition was made of Rs.60,00,000/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) held that deemed dividend can not be taxed in the hands Madhav Arcade. But he directed that it can be taxed in the hands of shareholders i.e. Shri Surender Gupta

Y.V.Rajesekhara Babu, Hyderabad vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/VIZ/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.192/Viz/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

noticed that the assessee has obtained a loan amount of Rs. 1,03,96,980/- from the company, which was assessed as deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, the assessee being a 25% share holder in VEIL, and assessee being a beneficial holder of the shares. Aggrieved ... directed the Assessing Officer to determine the accumulated profits in accordance with law in order to decide the quantum of deemed dividend. The AO issued necessary notices to the assessee and in response the assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared and furnished the required details. The AO then considering the submissions

T.Naga Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/VIZ/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

noticed that the assessee has obtained a loan amount of Rs. 1,01,83,381/- from the company, which was assessed as deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, the assessee being a 25% share holder in VEIL, and assessee being a beneficial holder of the shares. Aggrieved ... directed the Assessing Officer to determine the accumulated profits in accordance with law, in order to decide the quantum of deemed dividend. The AO therefore issued necessary notices to the assessee and in response the assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared and furnished the required details. The AO then considering