← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Yellow Sapphire International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3467/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 212Section 56Section 56(1)

share holder in both the entities i.e. the present assessee and the entities which are extending the loans therefore the conditions specified in section 2(22) (e) are satisfied and the alleged loans are nothing but the deemed dividend. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case ... given to the shareholders or to a concern, would not qualify as dividend. It has been made so by legal fiction created under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We have to keep in mind that this legal provision relates to dividend. Thus, by a deeming provision

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the department is admitted in the Apex Court vide case No.2805 of 2015. It is to mention that as per section 2(22)(e), dividend includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested ... profits of Rs.16,68,33,979/-during the financial year 2012-13. Considering the facts of the case and also the provisions of section 2(22)(e), an amount of Rs. ITA No.1110/Hyd/2018 3 16,68,33,979/- is treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits

Hirenkumar Lavjibhai Kanani, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

held a significant shareholding. 3. The reassessment proceedings were initiated for the limited scrutiny purpose of verifying the applicability of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which deals with "Deemed Dividend". The Assessing Officer (AO), after considering the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee, made ... addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the income of the assessee, treating it as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act, alleging that the AO had not properly examined two issues

M/S Indian Clothing League Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Income Tax Officer TDS-1, Vadodara vs. Aarav Reality Private Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2012-13 Ito, Tds-1 Aarav Reality Private Limited Vadodara. Vs 201, Payal Complex Opp: M.S. University Sayajiganj Vadodara 390 005. Pan : (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 250

loan from M/s Aarav Reality P.Ltd., treating it as deemed dividend in its hand in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act ,was overturned by the ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of deemed 3 dividend . It was also pointed out by the ld.counsel

Sri. Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234

deemed dividend u/s. 2[22][e] of the Act in the hands of the appellant without appreciating that the provisions of section 2[22][e] of the Act have no application to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] erred in holding that ... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 2[22][e] of the Act were not applicable as there was no payment made by M/S. Mukka Sea Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., during the year under

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Vinod Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad

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

ITA 638/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.638/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

happens to be a Director /shareholder holding more than 10% of the shareholding, learned Assessing Officer treated the same as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), stating that in spite of calling for and allowing sufficient time, the assessee

Faiz Zakir Vali, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veen AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 10Section 132(4)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

after making addition of ` 82,00,000, on account of Faiz Zakir Vali ITA no.65/Nag./2021 deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and ` 2,55,00,000, on account of short term capital gains on sale of land for the year 2010-11 by holding ... attained finality in the absence of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court relied on the decision in the case of CIT v/s Murli Agro Products

Akash Petroleum Pvt. Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 760/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 21-03-2024 Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “DIVISION BENCH-A” AHMEDABAD Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member & Shri T R Senthil

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 666/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44A

Page 4 of 8 total shares of the company. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer held that Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, deemed dividend amounting to Rs.1,04,78,866/- and Rs.41,64,532/- which is restricted to the accumulated profit

Shreekant Ray, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 824/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Bhandary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

total income of Rs. 1,05,46,917/- by making an addition of Rs. 94,14,477/- on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the finding of the AO and also observed that despite granting several opportunities as mentioned ... shown accumulated profit of Rs. 4,49,441/-. Since, there was no explanation from the assessee, the AO triggered the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The transaction fell under the category of deemed dividend as the assessee was a beneficial owner of share of shareholding

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. K.S.Chawla & Sons (HUF), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed and the C

ITA 6974/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 6974/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Acit Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (Huf) 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Central Circle – I, Gurugram Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurugram Pan: Aadhk 7622 M

For Appellant: Shri Parikshi Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

concerned, it is observed that it was not based on any seized document and hence cannot be substantiated. It is also observed that section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in this case as none of the directors had more than 10% holding in the applicant money

DCIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Krishna Murthy Ella, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.610/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. C.I.T Vs. Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacpe6389G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

scrutiny and during the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 cannot be invoked for loans taken from the company amounting to Rs.2,45,35,154/-. In response ... taken by the company with interest cannot be treated as loans and advances in the nature of gracious payment which attract provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of the provisions

Samit Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 15.11.2007. The revenue sought to make addition on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph

Malika Roy, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 779/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 15.11.2007. The revenue sought to make addition on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph

Arati Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. -3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 15.11.2007. The revenue sought to make addition on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(2)(1)Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Madhusudhan Babubhai Kocha, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3516/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC herein has erred in law and on facts in reversing the assessment findings making section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 310,25,993/- vide following lower appellate discussion:- 2 Madhusudhan Babubhai Kocha “6. I have considered the submission ... appellant and perused the order of the Assessing Officer. The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) which is the bone of contention in this case is reproduced below:- "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - (22) dividend includes— (e) any payment by a company, not being a company

The DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Jayantibhai S Patel, Ahmedbad

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1093/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11) Dy.Cit Shri Jayantibhai S. Patel बनाम/ Gandhinagar Circle, 48, Shankar Society, Part- Vs. Gandhinagar 1, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382424 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adgpp8465R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. K. Patel, Ar 24/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 02.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Against Third Round Of Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In This Case. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y.2010-11 Was Filed By

For Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, AR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

shares of this company. Therefore, the loan given by the Company to the assessee was to be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The second re-assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.12.2017 at total income ... Authority which was decided vide the impugned order and the ld. CIT(A) had restricted the addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of accumulated profit of the company. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The following

Smt. Rinku Chakraborthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/BANG/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Shambu Sharma, H, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)
Section 2(22)(e)

which was not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, considering the commercial element in the disputed transaction, the provision of deemed dividend specified under section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be attracted. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below ... transaction between the assessee and the directors and therefore the same cannot be subject to the provisions of deemed dividend as provided under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Regarding this, the contentions of the assessee are summarised as under: i. There was a property owned by the directors

Pankaj Kakrania, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 480/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Manish Bajoria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI