“deemed dividend”

Vinay Arun Joshi, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai-1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

Kailash Nath Vishwanath Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 27(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2012-13

appeal of the Assessee in limine and consequently affirmed the addition/disallowances of Rs.1,61,30,461 & Rs.41,96,954/- respectively made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and disallowance u/s 41(1) of the Act. Though we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file

Tejal Ketan Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Tejal Ketan Shah, Income Tax Officer, 2901/2902, Estonia B Wing Ward-42(1)(5), Hiranandani, S.V. Road Poisar Opp. Mumbai Vs. Ragulila Mall Kandivali, Mumbai- 400067 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aglps 5568C Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of an amount of Rs.1,17,40,867/- as deemed dividend under Section (u/s.) 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee ... company had accumulated profits more than the amount of loan advanced, the loan received by the assessee is in the nature of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the amount should not be added

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

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.43,15,350/- after making addition following additions (a) deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of INR.55,00,000/-, (b) Account of mismatch of 26AS details of INR.20,28,653/-, and (c) disallowance under Section 40A(3) of INR.48 ... proceedings were initiated in the hands of the shareholder of the Assessee-Company and addition was made in the hands of such shareholder as deemed dividend income vide Assessment Order, dated 13/11/2018, passed under Section 147 of the Act in the case of Mr. Sam Balsara. Therefore, the Assessee filed

Infinity Cars Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT03 Central Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Ltdare reproduced as under: “5.5. We also find that no incriminating materials were found during the search in respect of the issue of deemed dividend. Hence it cannot be the subject matter of addition in 153C proceedings in respect of completed assessments. We hold that when an addition could ... order within the meaning of this provision." In view of the aforesaid findings and judicial precedent relied upon, we hold that the addition towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the assessments framed u/s 153C of the Act for the Asst Years

Chagan Chimaji Khatke, Bhiwandi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Office, Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reserve of the above named company by invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, treating the alleged amount as deemed dividend in hands of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the ld.CIT (A). Before him, it was stated that ... been pointed by the ld.CIT(A) that before the AO in response to the show cause to treat loans as deemed dividend has contented that the "...assessee is a director and shareholder of Jayraj Textiles Park Pvt Ltd. They also trading with each other whenever they required but during said

Vinita Pawankumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

addition of Rs. 25,58,638/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 2 (22) (e) of the I. T. Act, 1961, as deemed dividend in the hands of the Appellant wrongly invoking clause (b) of Explanation 3 to section 2 (22) (e) of the I. T. Act which ... applicable. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and treated the loan amount of Rs. 25,58,638/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant portion of the AO are extracted as below: “The share holding pattern is changed