← All Phrases

“section 2(22)(e)”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 2(22)(e)Section 2(22)(e)751 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 2(22)(e) is CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (319 ITR 204), cited in 378 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 2(22)(e)

CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.
319 ITR 204 · 2009 · High Court
378
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not applicable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

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.

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.
298 ITR 194 · 2008 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

Interest expenditure incurred for acquiring capital assets, even if capitalized in the books, is deductible if for the purpose of business. Section 36(1)(iii) is a self-contained code regarding such deductions.

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.

Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT
72 ITR 612 · 1969 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

The reasonableness of an expenditure for business purposes must be assessed from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's, and the primary motive to earn income directly is not a prerequisite for its admissibility as a deduction.

H T Media Ltd. v. PCIT
399 ITR 576 · 2017 · High Court
132
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must first record satisfaction that the assessee’s claim regarding expenditure incurred for earning exempt income is incorrect or unreasonable before applying the provisions of Rule 8D to determine such disallowance under Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act.

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.

Judgments citing section 2(22)(e)

Arimilli Rama Krishna, West Godavari Dist vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

excess amount withdrawn by the assessee, i.e., up to the extent of the accumulated profits available with the company as “deemed dividend” under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made an addition of the same in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO, vide his order passed ... ground has no meaning and no force and is not acceptable and is dismissed. 6.8 In the 7th ground the addition made under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been challenged. It has been stated that the appellant had offered his personal properties as collateral

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 PER BENCH: ITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment Year

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

:-2-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 PER BENCH: ITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 PER BENCH: ITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment Year

Shreeram Constructions, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 481/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 37(1)Section 40

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Bangalore Union Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

amounting to Rs.99,25,000/- and loan given to Mr. Sivaramakrishnan amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- as deemed dividend in terms of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 7. The NFAC, Delhi to appreciate that ... provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act had no application to the present facts and in circumstances of the case, inasmuch ought to have appreciated that pre-requisite conditions required for invoking the provisions in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were absent in the present case

Pradeep Suganchand Kawdiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2135/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2013-14

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 938/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2848/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

whereas the Id. CIT (A) while passing an appellate order wrongly extracted the facts of some different assessee dealing with the issue of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thus, confirming the addition by mentioning the amount as 234,64,771/-. Therefore, this appears

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2847/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

whereas the Id. CIT (A) while passing an appellate order wrongly extracted the facts of some different assessee dealing with the issue of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thus, confirming the addition by mentioning the amount as 234,64,771/-. Therefore, this appears

Kishor Changya Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO41(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 8032/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(4)

information and submissions were made by the assessee, however the assessment was completed ITA No.8024/Mum/2025 Mr. Kailash Prakash Karamchandani with the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act for Rs. 38,76,790/- and Rs. 69,13,475/-. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid addition assessee preferred

Sahara India Limited, Lucknow vs. The ACIT., New Delhi

ITA 1243/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

counsel submits at the outset that the assessee/appellant raises its sole substantive ground herein seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs.5 crores; in assessment order dated 19.03.1999 as concurred in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case ... held 24.97% and 84.82% stock, respectively. This being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the impugned statutory provision section 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked in the assessee’s case in both the lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 78/LKW/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

counsel submits at the outset that the assessee/appellant raises its sole substantive ground herein seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs.5 crores; in assessment order dated 19.03.1999 as concurred in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case ... held 24.97% and 84.82% stock, respectively. This being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the impugned statutory provision section 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked in the assessee’s case in both the lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 46/LKW/2006[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

counsel submits at the outset that the assessee/appellant raises its sole substantive ground herein seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs.5 crores; in assessment order dated 19.03.1999 as concurred in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case ... held 24.97% and 84.82% stock, respectively. This being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the impugned statutory provision section 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked in the assessee’s case in both the lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 45/LKW/2006[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

counsel submits at the outset that the assessee/appellant raises its sole substantive ground herein seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs.5 crores; in assessment order dated 19.03.1999 as concurred in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case ... held 24.97% and 84.82% stock, respectively. This being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the impugned statutory provision section 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked in the assessee’s case in both the lower proceedings in absence of it being the common shareholder