← 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)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Subash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 3054/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

Undisclosed income from sale of closing stock - Rs. 11,70,847/- of preceding year (15) Deemed dividend added back under section 2(22)(e)- Rs. 44,93,268/- (16) Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IB 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Automotives Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam Mp

ITA 555/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36

Page 3 of 10 M/s Shirani Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2014-15 where it was held that that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company who was lending money to it. Further reliance was placed ... Nagpur): Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding in terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend- HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in Page 4 of 10 M/s Shirani

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cenrtalcircle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Vijaynagar Food and Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 246/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 246/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Vijaynagar Food & Income Tax, Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadcv 9495 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

only assess undisclosed income consequent to search action. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the explanation 3(b) to section 2(22)(e) is an independent provision and the provisions of section 2(32) do not match ‘mutatis mutandis’ apply to the present case. (iv) Any other ... legal provisions on deemed dividend as explained above and the facts of the case are in order and hence the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted in view of specific explanation in section 2(32) of the Act as to when a shareholder

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1)Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Sms Shivnath Infrasstructure Pvt Ltd., Durg, Durg(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 18 ITA No.87/RPR/2017 & ITA No.107/RPR/2016 In view of the above facts ... associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 22. On the issues raised u/s 263, assessee has made

M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 18 ITA No.87/RPR/2017 & ITA No.107/RPR/2016 In view of the above facts ... associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 22. On the issues raised u/s 263, assessee has made

International Management Technologies, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi

Accordingly set aside. The appeal however, is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1298/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1298/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. International Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Management Income Tax, Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(2), 1St Floor, Vijaya Building, New Delhi 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaaci8587M Assessee By Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

Properties Pvt. Ltd. has accumulated profit of Rs. 25,42,48,848/- as on 31.03.2015. In the case of the appellant provision of Section 2(22)(e) is clearly attracted. This fact has also not been disputed by appellant before AO. The only argument of the Ld. AR that ... loan taken was an interest bearing loan. This argument of the Ld. AR does not have any basis as the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) does not have any exception for interest bearing loans & advances. It is also evident from the assessment order and the submission of the appellant

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Sagar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 569/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the shareholders. Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (2013) has held that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company, who was lending money to it. 3.1. The assessee further submitted ... Nagpur) Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding fin terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend-HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in view of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 554/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the shareholders. Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (2013) has held that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company, who was lending money to it. 3.1. The assessee further submitted ... Nagpur) Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding fin terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend-HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in view of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 553/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the shareholders. Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (2013) has held that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company, who was lending money to it. 3.1. The assessee further submitted ... Nagpur) Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding fin terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend-HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in view of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour

M/S. National Travel Service, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5291/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5291/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S National Travel Service, Vs Acit, 2, Jetair House, 13, Community Circle-24(1), Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafn2055Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.85,29,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Suffice it to mention that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of General

Shivam Residential Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Valsad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 396/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

seen that their ledger accounts with the assessee company have not been called for examining the applicability of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and consequent incidence of Dividend Distribution Tax. 4.The assessee company has borrowed considerable funds on interest as can be seen from Annexure

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

addition of Rs. 8,63,00,000/- relating to payment received on behalf of M/s Hero Honda Fincorp Ltd. Deemed as dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act since the payment (i.e. advances) were not given in the ordinary course of business? 10. Whether, on the facts ... years 2010-2011 to 2013- 14. Ground no. 9: Payment received on behalf of Hero Honda FinCorp. Ltd. (HFCL) deemed as dividend under section 2(22)(e). Facts: Hero FinCorp Limited (HFCL) is a related company which is engaged primarily in the business of financing of vehicles. In pursuance

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pci Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross objections of the assessee in CO No

ITA 5154/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)

convinced that the assessee had availed advance pursuant to business transaction, and, therefore, was outside the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), on proper appreciation of the facts, was convinced that the assessee company has furnished its corporate guarantee and allowed

Bineeta Singh, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3373/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Bineeta Singh, The Acit Circle 5(1), Flat No. 126, Aspen Greens, New Delhi Nirwana Country, Gurgaon, Vs. Haryana 122003 Pan Aqeps3259D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate
Section 147Section 2(22)Section 250

assessee has challenged the addition, made by the A.O. and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), on following grounds and precise submissions:- i) section 2(22)e of the Income Tax 1961, does not apply to non gratuitous advance to substantial share holder for this proposition the learned counsel ... Archana Sharma vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad, it was also contended that the classes of shareholder specified therein would come within the purview of section 2(22)(e) but not in the cases were loan and advances has been given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by such shareholder

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi

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

ITA 4892/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

Accordingly both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4138/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

Rs.3.35 crores. The AO again found that the assessee is holding 50% shares in these companies. 6. Invoking the provisions of section 2 (22) (e) of the Act the assessee was show caused to explain why addition should not be made treating the impugned advances as deemed dividend ... assessee strongly contended that these advances were taken for purchase of land for the respective companies and, therefore, are outside the purview of section 2 (22) (e) of the Act. 7. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who was of the firm belief

Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

Accordingly both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4137/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

Rs.3.35 crores. The AO again found that the assessee is holding 50% shares in these companies. 6. Invoking the provisions of section 2 (22) (e) of the Act the assessee was show caused to explain why addition should not be made treating the impugned advances as deemed dividend ... assessee strongly contended that these advances were taken for purchase of land for the respective companies and, therefore, are outside the purview of section 2 (22) (e) of the Act. 7. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who was of the firm belief

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Platinum Towers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s application under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7714/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gen X Commodities (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3562/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Yogesh Mehra, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhyogesh Mehra Vs. Pcit-2 201, Hare Krishna Room No. 1920, Building, Presidency Air India Building, Society, North South Mumbai - 400021 Road No. 8, Jvpd, Vile Parle, (West), Mumbai – 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapm6139N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishita MandalagwalaFor Respondent: Heman Kumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 263

accounts of WWIL in the books of Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP is to be considered as loans or advance for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) despite the fact that Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP has never become a debtor of WWII during the previous year relevant ... WWIL. The A.O observed that in the case of the assesse provision of Sec. 2(22)(e) are attracted. As per provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the act any loan or deposit given by a company to ashareholder who is hodling not less than 10% of the voting