“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

Anmol Himanshu Patel Legal Heir of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4) Now Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1479/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- when no such addition is called for. 4. In law and in the facts ... appellant, the AO has grossly erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as 'Deemed Dividend' in the hands of the appellant even when the no benefit has been received by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave

Addpol Chemspecialities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodra, Vadodra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1641/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 16,00,000 on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the act without appreciating that provision of section 2(22)(e) is applicable only in hands of a shareholder ... loan of Rs. 16,00,000/- has to be considered under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act as deemed dividend income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and added the same. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the interest expenditure to the extent

Snehal Ravjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1418/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 21-02-2020 and proposing to treat a sum of Rs.56,09,615/- as deemed dividend 3. Assessee filed a return in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 and claimed the loan amount should not be taxed ... hands of the assessee as deemed dividend and also objected to the reopening of assessment. The assessing officer considered the submission however made addition of Rs.56,09,015/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal

Mr Mukund Vallabhdas Thakker, Mumbai vs. Dycit. CC 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5904/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09 Mr. Mukund Vallabhdas Deputy Commissioner Of Thakker, Income Tax, Ground Floor, Vs. Central Circle-4(2)(1), Persian Apartments, Aayakar Bhavan, 434, Vp Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Aaapt3952A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually Appeared) For Revenue : Shri Anurag Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Delhi, Dated 27-08-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs. 9,73,306/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi

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

vide order dt. 30-03-2016, wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 9,73,306/- as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. As per the AO, a Chevrolet Optra Car for Rs. 9,73,306/- was purchased in the name of the assessee ... that any payment made by any such company on behalf of or for the individual benefit of any such shareholder is in nature of deemed dividend. In the instant case, the company has made the payment of the car purchased in the name of the appellant and hence, has made

Sunil Madhyani, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 586/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.586/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Madhyani Ward No.24, Behind Hotel Malwa Durg (C.G.)- 491 001 Pan: Apipm9839G

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

appeal: “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,12,09,000/- as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, ignoring that: a) the advance was non-gratuitous, having been made in recognition of personal guarantees and collateral ... held that the amount of 4 Sunil Madhyani Vs. DCIT, Cirle-1(1), Bhilai Rs.1,12,09,000/- was liable to be taxed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, being an advance received by a shareholder holding substantial interest in a closely held company with

Universal Auto Gears LLP, Kolar vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1370/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

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

received by the assessee during the year. The AO had treated the loan received from the said Universal Carburizing Works Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act since the company as well as the assessee are having common shareholders. Even though the assessee

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

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

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

purchase of time share weeks, entered into with its subsidiaries Regal Vacation Concepts Private Limited and Royal International Holiday Club (India) Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing commission ... para 9.6 of assessment order. The assessee filed its reply. In the reply, the assessee objected about the treating the payment against transaction as deemed dividend. The assessee reiterated that they have undertaken various transactions with Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

ITA 191/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263

both the addl. CIT while granting approval u/s 153D as well as Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceeding have examined the issue of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act at the hands of assessee in relation to the advance shown in his name in the books

Ramsamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani, Pallipalayam vs. Itd, Ward 2, Tiruchengode

ITA 2438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2438/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late. Ramasamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani, (Represented By Legal Heir Shri. P.D.Balachandhran) 79, R.P.Street, Sankari Bye-Pass Road, R.P.Street,\Pallipalayam – 638 006. [Pan:Acqpd-3208-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito, Vs. Ward -2, Tiruchengode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 16.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Herein After “Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 16.07.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

Rs.1,79,52,270/- by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act in assessing the above amount as deemed dividend which has been upheld by the First appellate authority. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the AO is not justified in making ... M/s.Best Cheran Spintex India Limited was finalized u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2013 by making an addition of Rs.10,38,63,374/- as deemed dividend received from M/s.Cheran Spinners Limited in the form of unsecured loan and accordingly charged

DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Rakesh S Kathotia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

based on detailed fund trail analysis, substantial shareholding of the appellant in Subhkam, and the colourable structuring adopted to avoid tax on deemed dividend. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in applying a narrow interpretation to section 2(22)(e), whereas the provision, as per settled judicial interpretation, encompasses indirect loans ... passed thereby making additions of Rs. 6,29,50,047/- by treating the loan received from M/s. Authum Investment as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision, the assessee preferred appeal which was allowed by Ld. CIT(A) by deleting the additions

ITO, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Jujhar Construction & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Ito, Vs M/S Jujhar Construction & Ward 6(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd.,Near Pull Jawaddi, Ludhiana. Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcj1127H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

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

loan/advance outstanding in the name of the assessee in the books of CCNPL was of Rs.5,14,13,296/-. The AO has assessed deemed dividend u/s A.Y.2013-14 3 2(22)(e) of Rs.12,24,72,654/- in the name of Shri Gurdeep Singh on substantive basis. The dispute travelled upto ... mall. The amount is given purely in the nature of inter corporate deposits and thus it cannot come under the category of deemed dividend. Irrespective of the status of the Company whether it is subsidiary or not subsidiary the very transfer of amount from the group companies for the A.Y.2013-14

Kabir Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD-II) Cr 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5342/MUM/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.5342/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Kabirmulchandani V/S. Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, बनाम C/O R.C Kapoor & Co, Mumbai Chartered Accountants Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, Mumbai D-36, South Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi 110049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm1224B Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/"ितवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

against which the assessee is in appeal. Sr.No. Particulars Addition by Deleted by Addition AO CIT(A) Sustained 1 Deemed Dividend 12,003,200 (9,682,200) 2,321,000 Income 2 Unexplained Cash credits a. Dated 04.05.1999 282 -- 282 b. Dated 13.11.1999 1,875,000 -- 1,875,000 Rest ... Accordingly, the assessee is in appeal before us in respect of only two issues which are as under. 1. Addition on account of deemed dividend income – Rs. 23,21,000/-. 2. Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 – Rs. 18,75,000/- P a g e | 4 ITA No. 5342/Mum/2024

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

given by Company to Assessee being deemed income as per provisions of S. 2(22)(e), no addition can be made on account of deemed dividend 9 Sh. Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar. 1.2 ITO v/s Chitalia Builders 90 CCH 405(Guj) it has been held that Insofar as the deletion

Mateshwari Bus Operation Private Limited, Ahemdabad vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2, Ahemdabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmateshwari Bus Operations Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Tds, Ward-2, U-7, Swastik House, Near Old Ahmedabad. High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. [Pan :Ahmm13678 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amit Mundhra, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Bona Fide Inter- Corporate Loan Of Rs.20,00,000/- Advanced By The Assessee To M/S Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. As "Deemed Dividend" Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & In Holding The Assessee To Be An Assessee In Default Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) For Not Deducting Tax At Source Under Section 194 Of The Act. The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Transaction Was A Commercial Loan, Fully Disclosed & Subsequently Repaid By The Recipient, The Assessee Was Not The Beneficial Owner Of Shares In The Recipient Company, No Benefit Accrued To Any Shareholder Individually & The Conditions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Satisfied Either In Letter Or In Spirit. The Impugned Order Is Therefore Bad In Law, Based On Presumptions & Liable To Be Quashed In Its Entirety.” Maheshwari Bus Operation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year 2015-16 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mundhra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)Section 250

treating the bona fide inter- corporate loan of Rs.20,00,000/- advanced by the assessee to M/s Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. as "deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in holding the assessee to be an assessee in default under section ... Income-tax Act, since lending money is not part of the assessee's ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the said advance was treated as deemed dividend under the said section. It was further held that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as required under Section

International Creations Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

erred in confirming action of the AO in treating investment in partnership firm as loan given and treating it as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the I-T Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject ... that the director was having substantial interest in the company and therefore, loans of Rs.39,50,000/- given was required to be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of accumulated profit. Therefore, TDS as per provisions of Section

Madison Teamworks Film Promotions and Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3533/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner Of Promotions & Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, 349 Business Point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan : Aaecm1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the alleged deemed dividend amounting to INR 55,00,000 in the hands of the Appellant. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 55 lakhs as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act besides an amount of Rs. 20,28,653/- on account of 26AS mismatch and made a disallowance of expenditure

Arihant Fertiliser and Chemicals India Limited, Indore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Indore

ITA 711/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

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

completed assessment at a total income of Rs. 8,93,89,110/- after making an addition of Rs. 49,56,118/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) pertaining to loan taken by assessee-company from another company “M/s Arihant Bio-Chem Ltd”. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first ... business liability of the appellant company towards Arihant Bio-Chem Ltd. as alleged loan received by the appellant company in the nature of deemed dividend without considering and appreciating the material fact that the appellant company was not a registered shareholder of Arihant Bio-Chem Ltd. and therefore, the provisions