“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)

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

AO/Ld.DRP is completely incorrect since the exclusion provided by Page No. 15 Legrand Nederland B.V. the Explanation is for deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) and not for deemed dividend under section 2(22)(d) of the Act. 18. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3164/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: the date of search, cannot be sustained u/s 153A of the Act. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,75,075/-.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Cotlon India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6880/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Catlon India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 44, Goenka House, Circle-6(2), Zamrudpur, Kailash Colony Vs C.R. Building, Extension, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacc0052F Assessee Revenue

Section 195(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

contingency of an adverse outcome in the SLP. It is Revenue's contention before the Apex Court that the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable in the hands of P&A. This is certainly not permissible because the jurisdictional requirement is that respondents must entertain a belief

Manmohan Singh Sehgal, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi -10, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 791/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 791/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Manmohan Singh Sehgal, Vs Pcit, C/O Ajay Arun Mehta & Associates, Delhi-10, Chartered Accountants, Shop No. 25, Dda Market, B Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abaps6153M Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40Section 68Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B

Sh. Vipin Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 7027/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. Noni Farms P.Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT

ITA 6973/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the date of utilization and the onus to prove it, is on the person who is claiming the benefit and not on the Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7154/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Deep Chand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

that the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act to assess an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this regard, the ld. counsel submitted that amount so received by the assessee is not in the nature

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji vs. M/S Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 219/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 219/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji. . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

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

firm is in the ordinary course of business and hence they are not in the nature of advances or loans as envisaged in section 2(22)(e). ii) It is an admitted position that the sums so received have been utilized for the business of the Appellant. It is also

The ACIT, Kozhikode vs. Shri K.C.James, Goa

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and the assessee’s COs are dismissed

ITA 54/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(45)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos

The ACIT, Kozhikode vs. Shri.. K.C.James, Goa

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and the assessee’s COs are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(45)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos

Shri Manmohan Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.171/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

assessee is a shareholder of more than 38% of the company. The ld. AO added back amount of Rs.52,89,797/- for contravening section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the amount was added in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ... specific provisions to tax the same. Certain transaction is covered by deeming provision & have been brought in the statute under deeming provision. Same section 2(22)(e), deeming provision has been brought in the statute to cover up transaction. The benefit is not individual but solely on business exigency

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

judicial pronouncements / case laws releid upon by the assessee. With regard to ground No.2 and 3, the assessee submitted that the provisons of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act speaks about Deemed Dividend. That means the dividend which is not actually paid by the company or received ... explanation for not disclosing loans and advances received from a company-in i which he was a beneficial shareholder under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) towards addition made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Edgar Braz Afonso, Calangute

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 98/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Edgar Braz Afonso, Calangute

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 97/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji vs. Mrs Natalina Vaz., Caranzalem, Goa

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 112/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji vs. Mrs Natalina Vaz., Caranzalem, Goa

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 111/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)