← 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)

Deeptti Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-7 (1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The first issue concerns additions of Rs.2,08,50,000/- by invoking provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that provisions of Section 2(22 ... been wrongly invoked by the Revenue in the facts of the case. The ld. counsel made two fold submissions for non-applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4.1 Firstly, the ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is a substantial shareholder holding 10.29% voting power in the lender

Lakshmi Mendalu Narayan Rao Naidu, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Star Line Leasing Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1973/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 2(22)(e)Section 7

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in holding that provisions of Section 2(22)(e) do not attract to the above transfer without appreciating that second limb of Section 2(22)(e) covers any payment for the individual

Deevik Garg, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 38(1), New Delhi

ITA 4318/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediadeevik Garg Vs. Acit E-1/75, Sec-07, Rohini, Circle – 38(1) New Delhi – 110 085 New Delhi Pan No. Adrpg 2815 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

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

such deserves to be quashed. 2 2. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that provisions under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are attracted to the transaction between appellant and M/s Hanuman Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. which is based ... confirmed by him needs to be deleted. 4. That Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that revisions under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are attracted to the transaction between appellant and M/s Hanuman Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. even

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

deleting the addition u/s. 2(22)(e) of Rs.2,51,10,067/- ignoring fact that A.O. has made the addition by holding that section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 intended to tax the beneficial share holder and not necessarily the registered shareholder of the company from which ... also a 33.01% shareholder in M/s. Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd.. The ld. AO alleged that since there is a common shareholder, Section 2(22)(e) of the Act has to be invoked. However, the ld. CIT(A) decided in favour of the assessee following the decision of this

DCIT, Chennai vs. Gemini Traze Rfid Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 875/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.875/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit M/S.Gemini Traze Rfid Private Limited बनाम/ Vs. Corporate Circle-2(1), No.1, Dr.Ranga Road, Chennai-34. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-5226-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Veeraraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri V.Veeraraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(31)

whether incorporated or not, a local authority and every artificial juridical person not falling within any of the above and Section 2(22)(e) contemplates any payment made by a company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares

ACIT Circle- 61(1), New Delhi vs. Adiish Jain, New Delhi

ITA 284/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle-61(1), New Delhi (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

other concern i.e. M/s. JP Engineers in which the assessee is substantially interested, would squarely fall within the ambit of definition of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Id AO also observed that M/s. SMW Metal Pvt. Ltd has accumulated profits to the tune ... Metal Pvt. Ltd and M/s. JP Engineers are only in the nature of loan and advances transaction warranting invocation of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the Id AO held that the CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12.06.2017 relied upon by the assessee could be made

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1335/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Officer contended that Sh. Harjeet Singh Sahini is a common director and substantial shareholder in both the companies and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act get attracted and made addition of Rs.15,26,05,000/-. 15. Upon asssessee’s appeal ... that the nature of Advance was a trade advance. That once it is established the Advance was a ‘trade advance’, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked and deleted the addition. 16. Against this order, the Revenue is in appeal before

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1334/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Officer contended that Sh. Harjeet Singh Sahini is a common director and substantial shareholder in both the companies and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act get attracted and made addition of Rs.15,26,05,000/-. 15. Upon asssessee’s appeal ... that the nature of Advance was a trade advance. That once it is established the Advance was a ‘trade advance’, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked and deleted the addition. 16. Against this order, the Revenue is in appeal before

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1333/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Officer contended that Sh. Harjeet Singh Sahini is a common director and substantial shareholder in both the companies and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act get attracted and made addition of Rs.15,26,05,000/-. 15. Upon asssessee’s appeal ... that the nature of Advance was a trade advance. That once it is established the Advance was a ‘trade advance’, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked and deleted the addition. 16. Against this order, the Revenue is in appeal before

Pawa International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 2723/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawa International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit M-102, Greater Kailash Part- Circle-19 (2) I, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacp6108P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 13.09.2023 By Nfac, Delhi.

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

fund are closely held companies, therefore, loan shall be treated as dividend to the extent of accumulated profits and invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the AO made the addition of Rs.53808475/-. 6. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success ... that the assessee is not even a share holder in the impugned company, therefore, there is no question of invoking the provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of the Act. 8. The DR placed strong reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have carefully considered the orders

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

submission of Ld. Sr. DR that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) was based on the observation that, for applicability to section 2(22)(e) of the Act, there must be a payment by the company by way of advance or loans if no loan or advance was given ... company provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable. Such observation of Ld. CIT(A) has been strongly opposed by the revenue stating that the company has granted loan to Shri Sanjay Raheja and Shri Deepak Raheja, thus, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

submission of Ld. Sr. DR that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) was based on the observation that, for applicability to section 2(22)(e) of the Act, there must be a payment by the company by way of advance or loans if no loan or advance was given ... company provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable. Such observation of Ld. CIT(A) has been strongly opposed by the revenue stating that the company has granted loan to Shri Sanjay Raheja and Shri Deepak Raheja, thus, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e

Skj Buildwell P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1226/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Managing Director [CMD] of the company out of reserves and surplus of Rs. 1,29,22,893/- and applied the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 13. We fail to understand how the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are attracted in the hands ... advance to the CMD? On such peculiar facts of the case, we do not find any merit in invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are allowed

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3565/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Disallowance under section 40A(3) Rs. 4,07,600/- (ii) Disallowance for negative balance Rs. 4,75,075/- (iii) Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) Rs.29,06,914/- 5. The assessee filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under section

Sreeni Parameswaran, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 186/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

That being the case, we do not think the same could be regarded as a loan or advance so as to attract section 2(22)(e) of the Act. SHPL, the company in which the assessee has substantial interest, is in the business of real estate, selling residential houses ... diversion of funds, representing the profit of the company, arises under the circumstances, to ascribe it as coming within the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This is of course subject to the nature of credit for Rs. 10 lac, forming part of Rs. 54.04 lacs, being

Kanta Gupta, Karnal vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7367/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyaita No.7367 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt. Kanta Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Aefpg 9971 D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No.7368 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Adepk 5887 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 153Section 2(22)(e)

under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 23.12.2009, wherein addition was made of Rs.60,00,000/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) held that deemed dividend can not be taxed in the hands Madhav Arcade. But he directed that ... Shri Surender Gupta and Smt. Kanta Gupta. Hence in these cases, assessment was reopened and the addition was made as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. At the outset, in this case, Learned Counsel for the assessee referred to Explanation - 3 of Section 153, which reads

Y.V.Rajesekhara Babu, Hyderabad vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/VIZ/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.192/Viz/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

profit or loss of the business accrues on day-to-day and gets accumulated at the end of the year. Hence, as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the profit or loss accrued till the date of disbursement of advance is to be considered for the purpose ... assessee will be included for the purpose of computing the accumulated profits. 9. In these circumstances, it is relevant to extract section 2(22)(e) of the Act for the sake of brevity: “2(22)(e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public

T.Naga Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/VIZ/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

profit or loss of the business accrues on day-to-day and gets accumulated at the end of the year. Hence, as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the profit or loss accrued till the date of disbursement of advance is to be considered for the purpose ... assessee will be included for the purpose of computing the accumulated profits. 9. In these circumstances, it is relevant to extract section 2(22)(e) of the Act for the sake of brevity: “2(22)(e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public

Manoj Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on addition of Rs.4,73,526/- made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act by alleging I.T.A.No.2412/Del/2023 that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is pertinent to note that the appellant ... Mittal Construction & Real Estate Company Private Limited in which he is a beneficial shareholder, the Ld. AO has invoked deeming provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition of Rs.4,73,526/- to the extent of accumulated profits on the date of giving loan by company