← 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)

Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5720/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Krishan Kant Kohli Dcit C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Central Circle-Ii, South Extension, Part-1 Vs. Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Krishan Kant Kohli Central Circle-Ii A-2, Geetanjali Gurgaon, Vs. Enclave, Haryana New Delhi Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

company M/s Olympus Realtors'Pvt. Ltd. at nil instead of that of M/s Orient Craft Ltd.for the purpose of application of section 2(22)(e). v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that there has been ... which have been routed through different entities to the assessee with the only Sh. Krishan Kant Kohli intention to subvert the provisions of sections 2(22)(e) would constitute deemed dividend. (vii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd., Chennai

Appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/CHNY/2024[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.404/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd, Corporate Ward 3(1) 761, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaact 1230A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. S. Nagarajan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

erred in holding that assessee is not a share holder in M/s. MCTM Corporation Pvt. Ltd. So, the first condition of section 2(22)(e) is not satisfied. 6. The CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. National Travel Agency ... need not necessarily be a member of the company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) gets attracted. 7. The CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gopal and sons

Raj Hemant Shroff, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 986/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Hemant Shroff Acit-6(1)(1), Mumbai 11, Vallabh Apartments, Bhulabhai Vs Desai Road Breach Candy, Mumbai-400036. Pan: Aacps 5875 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

held as ab inito or otherwise bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I & II ABOVE 3. GROUND NO. III: ADDITION UNDER SECTION 2(22)(e) AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,11,06,941/- 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... upholding the action of the ld. AO in making an addition amounting to Rs. 4,11,06,941/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act as deemed dividend without appreciating that the funds received by the appellant were neither ‘loan’ nor ‘advance’. 3.2 The appellant prays that the said

Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2402/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2402/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 8599, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, Circle-13(1), New Delhi-110005 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn8112G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 22.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1063146918(1) In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of its taxable income which included the corresponding quantum additions/disallowance of section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend, rates and tax, ROC fees and diversion of interest; 2 Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd. involving very sums, made in the assessment

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

Additional unrecorded investments were found, amounting to Rs. 45,768/-, which further added to the total income of the assessee. Deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) were also included, with Rs. 19,00,105/- being added from GSPPL and Rs. 10,00,000/- from NIIP. These amounts were treated

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Unitech Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6399/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishana Ramavat, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer stating that the term ‘share application money’ is actually a disguise for ‘Loan and Advance’ to escape the provision of section 2(22)(e). The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the Companies Act provisions which stipulates payment of interest where shares are not allotted within 60 days

Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1824/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd….…………………………………………….…..……Appellant 20, B. T. Road, Kolkata-700002. [Pan: Aadcp7251J] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata..............….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return On 24.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.83,95,690/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Were Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Was Completed On 29.12.2011 With A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.93,95,690/-. Later On, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received A Loan Of Rs.2,11,39,885/- From M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. During The Relevant Financial Year. Both The Assessee & M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. Has Common Shareholders Namely Shri Haranjit Singh & Mr. Subash Bera Holding More Than 10% Of The Share Capital In Both Companies. The Assessing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 263

share capital in both companies. The Assessing I.T.A. No.1824/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd Officer, therefore, noted that as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the loans provided by a company to another entity with common significant shareholders are treated as deemed dividend. However ... notice, the assessee submitted that M/s H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. is not a shareholder in assessee’s company, therefore, section 2(22)(e) of the Act was not applicable. However, the Assessing Officer disagreed with the argument of the assessee stating that the loan qualified as a deemed

Sms Tolls and Developers, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Appeals, NFAC. Delhi ought to have seen that the assessee assessee has taken Inter Corporate Deposit which is out of purview of section 2(22)(e) of the I. T. Act. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case the working of accumulated profit ... purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act is unjustified, arbitrary and highly excessive. 5. The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” 3. Before us, during the course of hearing, the learned Counsel, Shri Kapil

Sudesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 284/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2013-14 Sudesh Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle 5(1), B-15, Kalindi Colony, Opp. Room No. G-15-B, C.R. Maharani Bagh, Building, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi (Pan: Aahpg5645G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

appellant company cannot be construed as excess payments which fall under the scope of "advances or loans" within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the transactions between the appellant ... funds on a need basis and such transactions do not fall under the ambit of "advances or loans" within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that deemed dividend

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

appellant company cannot be construed as excess payments which fall under the scope of "advances or loans" within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the transactions between the appellant ... funds on a need basis and such transactions do not fall under the ambit of "advances or loans" within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that deemed dividend

The ITO, Trivandrum vs. Shri.Xavi Mano Mathews, Trivandrum

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 26/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Rs.4,82,094/- and Rs.27,00,000/- respectively. 4. Deemed Dividend Lt.CIT(A) ought to have noted that as per section 2(22)(e) the dividend include any payment (total sum of receipt) made by the company by way of loan or advance to a shareholder holding not less than ... amount of loan which is against the provisions of that section. The decision of Lt.CIT(A) is not in accordance with provisions of section 2(22)(e) in matters like maximum amount, sum claimed to be received by wife of appellant etc. 5. For these and other grounds that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Vaishali Aggarwal, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as

ITA 507/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CIT(A) &For Respondent: Shri K.Mehboob Ali Khan,CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as

ITA 501/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CIT(A) &For Respondent: Shri K.Mehboob Ali Khan,CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Ramesh Nagindas Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1482/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

appellant. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition towards provisions of section 2(22)(e) in respect of Rs.65,22,947/- taken by the appellant from Mahavir Submersible P Ltd. and holding the as deemed dividend and thereby making ... facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the provisions of section 2(22)(e) in respect of Rs.65,22,947/- taken by the appellant from Mahavir Submersible P Ltd. and holding the as deemed dividend and thereby

Aspect Bullion Refinery Pvt Ltd, Zaveri Bazar Second Floor vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 8(3), Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai

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

ITA 3888/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanaspect Bullion Refinery Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ltd. Central Circle 8(4) C-803, 8Th Floor, C-Wing, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Maathon Nextgen Realty, Bhavan, Mumbai – Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, 400020. Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400013. Pan: Aahcm2136R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,04,416/- by invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The appellant company pray that said addition may please be deleted. 3. Ground No.3: On the facts and in the circumstances

Mr. Akbar Abdulali, Prop. Faiz and Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 521/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailakbar Humayun Abdulali, Prop. Faize & Company, Unit No.5, Alahi Baug, 75, Abdul Rehman Stree, ……………. Appellant Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400003 Pan: Aabps6866F

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 3

year 2011-12. 2 2. The only grievance of the assessee is against the addition made on account of the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration ... 28/09/2015 passed under section 3 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act concluded that the pre-conditions as laid down in section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Since the assessee while filing the Act declared income under section 2(22)(e

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 698/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

given as loan/advances to M/s Proview Construction Pvt. Ltd. in the A.Y. 2013-14 is deemed dividend within the meaning of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT. Act 1961 in the hands of Sh. Rajeev Arora as he is a beneficial owner of shares in both ... escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15 as per various judicial pronouncements and provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In order to assess the above income or any other income which comes to notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 147(b), issue of notice

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 642/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

given as loan/advances to M/s Proview Construction Pvt. Ltd. in the A.Y. 2013-14 is deemed dividend within the meaning of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT. Act 1961 in the hands of Sh. Rajeev Arora as he is a beneficial owner of shares in both ... escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15 as per various judicial pronouncements and provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In order to assess the above income or any other income which comes to notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 147(b), issue of notice

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 641/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

given as loan/advances to M/s Proview Construction Pvt. Ltd. in the A.Y. 2013-14 is deemed dividend within the meaning of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT. Act 1961 in the hands of Sh. Rajeev Arora as he is a beneficial owner of shares in both ... escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15 as per various judicial pronouncements and provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In order to assess the above income or any other income which comes to notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 147(b), issue of notice