← 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)

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 127/LKW/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2001-02

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

Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT, Lucknow

ITA 898/LKW/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

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

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

ground that the unsecured loan received from M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt Ltd should have been treated as deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no incriminating material was found in the course of the search and seizure operation carried ... common shareholder. Hence, such loan should have been treated as Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is reproduced as under: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (22) "dividend" includes (e

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Atul Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2803/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54B

details are as under: 7. By referring to the above chart, the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to explain why the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be invoked. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned amount of Rs.71,08,35,311/- as deemed dividend ... appellant by the AO as highlighted in the remand report. The legal position with regard to the application of provision of section 2(22)(e) is as under: (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether

Sh. Atul Bansal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2737/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54B

details are as under: 7. By referring to the above chart, the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to explain why the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be invoked. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned amount of Rs.71,08,35,311/- as deemed dividend ... appellant by the AO as highlighted in the remand report. The legal position with regard to the application of provision of section 2(22)(e) is as under: (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether

Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1) (Previously DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalincome-Tax Officer, Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Vs. Ward 7(2)(1), 1, Friends Colony, Sm Road, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan: Acups 2559 J] (Previously Dcit, Cir. 1(1)(2)) (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 80G

contrary to the facts of the case and the evidence on records. That the learned CIT(A) has misconstrued the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the act. 3. That appellant respectfully submit that there is no loan given by the company which has resulted in benefit ... assessee’s own deposit lying with the company and does not constitute a loan or advance. The Ld. AR also submitted that section 2(22)(e) applies only when a company grants a loan or advance out of its accumulated profits to a shareholder, which results in a benefit flowing

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune vs. Sachin Govind Apte, Pune

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 54F

justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made on account of deemed dividend u/s Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961? ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred ... position that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word „advance‟ in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, henceforth, appeals may not be filed on this ground by Officers of the Department and those already filed

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5400/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits" at the beginning of the financial year 2005-06 and accordingly the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied in absence of "accumulated profits" 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition ... vide order dated 30.08.2011, determining total income at rs.48,61,170/- which included addition of Rs.35,79,937/- within the scope of section 2(22)(e). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but the same was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5399/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits" at the beginning of the financial year 2005-06 and accordingly the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied in absence of "accumulated profits" 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition ... vide order dated 30.08.2011, determining total income at rs.48,61,170/- which included addition of Rs.35,79,937/- within the scope of section 2(22)(e). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but the same was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5398/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits" at the beginning of the financial year 2005-06 and accordingly the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied in absence of "accumulated profits" 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition ... vide order dated 30.08.2011, determining total income at rs.48,61,170/- which included addition of Rs.35,79,937/- within the scope of section 2(22)(e). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but the same was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5397/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits" at the beginning of the financial year 2005-06 and accordingly the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied in absence of "accumulated profits" 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition ... vide order dated 30.08.2011, determining total income at rs.48,61,170/- which included addition of Rs.35,79,937/- within the scope of section 2(22)(e). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but the same was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5396/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits" at the beginning of the financial year 2005-06 and accordingly the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied in absence of "accumulated profits" 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition ... vide order dated 30.08.2011, determining total income at rs.48,61,170/- which included addition of Rs.35,79,937/- within the scope of section 2(22)(e). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but the same was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5395/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

that the payer company does not possess "accumulated profits" at the beginning of the financial year 2005-06 and accordingly the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied in absence of "accumulated profits" 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition ... vide order dated 30.08.2011, determining total income at rs.48,61,170/- which included addition of Rs.35,79,937/- within the scope of section 2(22)(e). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but the same was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

M/S. Centrix Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6637/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S. Centrix Technologies Vs. Ito-Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited. (Old Jurisdiction-Ito-W1(4), Hyderabad), 7Th Floor, Office No.715, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400020. Samarth Aishwarya, Mumbai-400053. Pan/Gir No:Aabcc7117Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 40

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-18, Delhi on 28.01.2019 on the ground that income on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. In response to the said notice, the Appellant filed return of income on 20.02.2019. The Appellant also requested ... justified in deleting the Addition of Rs. 8,88,00,139/- on account of deemed dividend from Quantum Securities under provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-18, Delhi on 28.01.2019 on the ground that income on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. In response to the said notice, the Appellant filed return of income on 20.02.2019. The Appellant also requested ... justified in deleting the Addition of Rs. 8,88,00,139/- on account of deemed dividend from Quantum Securities under provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the Addition

M/S. Krian Cinema Banquests Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 4860/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagdish

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

1 Krian Cinema Banquets Pvt Ltd. INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Madineni Sitaramaiah, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

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

case of no positive amount for considering any "deemed income" in the hands of the assessee which is against the spirit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as the ACIT-CIRCLE 5(1),HYD. VS. MADINENI SITARAMAIAH assessee had received the loan amounts from out of substantial accumulated ... NFAC ought to have considered that the limited scrutiny reason of ‘Unsecured Loans ‘cannot be considered as origin for making addition under Section 2(22)(e) as ‘Deemed Dividend’ and thus erred in stating that addition made originated from the reasons for limited scrutiny. 4 The learned CIT(A), NFAC

Nand Kishore Malhan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5674/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5674/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Malhan, Vs Dcit, J-3, 3Rd Floor, Saket, Circle-22(2), New Delhi-110017 C.R. Building, Ito, Ip Esate, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahvpm7964R Assessee By: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Ahemadabad’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1078966067(1) Dated 28.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

DCIT Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5793/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

Subrata Roy held majority share holding in both the companies. The CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. The CIT(A) observed that SIFCL was holding only 0.002% shareholding in the assessee company, thus, the condition ... rather, these amounts represent reimbursement/sharing of expenses as per their mutual business understanding. Assessee is not a shareholder of SIFCL hence, provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied at the very threshold In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws wherein it was held that