← All Phrases

“section 2(22)(e)”

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

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excess amount withdrawn by the assessee, i.e., up to the extent of the accumulated profits available with the company as “deemed dividend” under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made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

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

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025\n\nPER BENCH:\n\nITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025

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

{"clean_text": ":-2-:\nITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571,\n2573 to 2577/Chny/2025\nPER BENCH:\nITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for

JOTHI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571,\n2573 to 2577/Chny/2025\n\nPER BENCH:\n\nITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025

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\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2848/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012
Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

whereas the Id. CIT (A) while\npassing an appellate order wrongly extracted the facts of some\ndifferent assessee dealing with the issue of Section 2(22)(e) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 and thus, confirming the addition by mentioning\nthe amount as ₹34,64,771/-. Therefore, this appears ... capital received, treating it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. For ITA No. 2848/KOL/2025, the addition was confirmed by the AO under Section 2(22)(e).", "held": "In the first appeal, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had erroneously extracted facts from a different case involving Section 2

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\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2847/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012
Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

whereas the Id. CIT (A) while\npassing an appellate order wrongly extracted the facts of some\ndifferent assessee dealing with the issue of Section 2(22)(e) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 and thus, confirming the addition by mentioning\nthe amount as ₹34,64,771/-. Therefore, this appears ... 2847/KOL/2025, the addition was for share capital received under Section 68. For ITA No. 2848/KOL/2025, the addition was under Section 2(22)(e) and the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte.", "held": "In the first case, the CIT(A) wrongly extracted facts from a different case and confirmed

KISHOR CHANGYA PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ITO41(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8032/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(4)

nsubmissions were made by the assessee, however the assessment was completed\n2\nITA No.8024/Mum/2025\nMr. Kailash Prakash Karamchandani\nwith the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act for Rs. 38,76,790/- and Rs.\n69,13,475/-.\n3.\nBeing aggrieved with the aforesaid addition assessee preferred the appeal ... dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order stemmed from additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15.", "held": "The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated

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

Showing 1–20 of 751 · Page 1 of 38

...