“section 2(22)(e)”

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-15(2)(2) Vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Limited, 20/21, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Navnandavan Indl Estate, Road, Marine Lines, L.B.S Marg, Mulund Mumbai – 400 020 (West), Mumbai – 400 080 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcp1825G Respondent .. Appellant

appellant was not a shareholder in lender company, therefore, AO was unjustified in taxing loan received by appellant as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Appellant borrowed sum received as intercompany loan from M/s Madhu Mattor Private Limited and the same was added as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22 ... e) in the hands of the appellant company. The appellant was not a shareholder in the lending company. Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) can be assessed only in the hands of a person who was a shareholder of lender company and not in the hands of a person

Rekha A Barot, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 9 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Rekha A. Barot, Dcit Central Circle-9(2)(1), 1, Ground Floor, Bharat Corporate 6Th Floor, Room No. 659, Avenue, Near Versova Police Station, Vs. Income Tax, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aenpb 5677 H Appellant Respondent

therefore does not fall within the ambit contractual obligation and therefore does not fall within the ambit of word (advance) as mentioned in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. If of word (advance) as mentioned in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. If of word (advance) as mentioned ... section 2(22)(e) of the Act. If further erred in further erred in treating the trade advance as a loan and treating the trade advance as a loan and considered the same as deemed dividend in the hands of your considered the same as deemed dividend in the hands

Shri Ajay Virendra Arora, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Ajay Virender Arora V. Dcit – Central Circle – 6(4) S-14, 6Th Floor Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Air India Building, Nariman Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. Shri Ajay Virender Arora Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor S-14, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Solitaire Corporate Park Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain & Shri Ravikanth Pathak Department By : Smt. Shailja Rai

quashed and set aside. 2. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) ought to have held that section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not apply to a sum given to the Managing Director of the company who is an employee. The Appellant craves

Shreerang Prakash Chikhalikar, Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshreerang Prakash Vs. Ito – 1(3)(2) Chikhalikar,501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Sugan, Cumballa Hill Bhavan, M.K.Road, Road, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400036. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acdpc3706G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dm Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Anoop Hiwase.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the submissions made and failed to appreciate that the provision of Section 2(22)(e) are not attracted. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the detail ... case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the company owed money to the appellant and the provision of Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, accumulated

Dealmoney Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 5(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Dealmoney Securities Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 5(2) Plot No. A-356/357, Road No. 26 Room No. 1908, 19Th Floor Near Wagle Bus Deopt, Wagle Estate Air India Building, Nariman Point Thane – 400604 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccd2614A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri M.P. Ahuja

assessee. Therefore, he partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee with regard to 14A disallowance. 7. With regard to disallowance of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the protective addition made on the accumulated profit of DCPL. With regard to disallowance made on the accumulated ... profit on DDASPL he held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is attracted and observed as under:- “5.6 As regards applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act to loans shown from M/s. Destimoney Distributors and Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. is concerned

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

admitting the additional evidences produced under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in connection with applicability of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of advance given by M/s. MAAD Realtors and Infra Ltd., to M/s. D.M. Logistic Pvt. Ltd., 3. We have heard rival ... having common shareholders i.e. Devendra Ladani & Mukesh Sonar (assessee herein) holding more than 20% shares in both the companies and accordingly, provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act gets attracted for the same. 3.1. The assessee contested this addition before the ld. CIT(A) and during the course

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

admitting the additional evidences produced under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in connection with applicability of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of advance given by M/s. MAAD Realtors and Infra Ltd., to M/s. D.M. Logistic Pvt. Ltd., 3. We have heard rival ... having common shareholders i.e. Devendra Ladani & Mukesh Sonar (assessee herein) holding more than 20% shares in both the companies and accordingly, provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act gets attracted for the same. 3.1. The assessee contested this addition before the ld. CIT(A) and during the course

Zeeshan Azizmohmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 4(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

appeal are dismissed. 11. The next issue arising in present appeal is with regard to addition made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 12. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the records are: During the assessment ... assessee was a shareholder of this company having stake of his shares at 25.34% and transaction being covered under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the assessee was asked to furnish the copy of return of M/s A.R. International Private Limited for assessment year

Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mr.Khalid Mustafa Vasaiwala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Ground 5 is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting R.29,94,481/- which was added by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Act terming the same as deemed dividend. 10. Brief facts as per the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has taken ... Meadows– Bandra) and, therefore, I was contended that the said transaction between assessee and M/s HDPL cannot be termed as deemed dividend under section 2(22(e) of the Act. It was also brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the other small advances aggregating to Rs.7

Tejas Ramaniklal Kothari, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5469/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Tejas Ramniklal Kothari, बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Of 304, Pushp Kung, A Road, Income Tax – 14(2), Mumbai, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Room No. 304, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Earnest House, Pan : Aabpk3545M Mumbai - 400021 (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: None For The Respondent/Revenue: Shri B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 16.07.2014 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 25, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Partly Allowed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 05.01.2014, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟)

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 40,94,555/- by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions made before him. ITA. No. 5469/Mum/2014

Rekha A Barot, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 9 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blerekha A. Barot V. Dcit – 9(2)(1) 1, Ground Floor Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Bharat Corporate Avenue Income Tax Near Versova Police Station Mumbai - 400020 D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan: Aenpb5677H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dalpat Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

submissions and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below on the issue. We find that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs.19 lakhs has been made in the hands of the assessee on the protective basis, whereas the addition ... trade advances which was paid under a contractual obligation and therefore does not fall within the ambit of word “advance” as mentioned in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The said AO further erred in treating the trade advance as a loan and considered the same as deemed dividend

M/S Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

Kapadia and Sons (P) Ltd.. The said unsecured loan in sum of Rs.39,34,639/- was treated as dividend income under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee’s income was assessed to the tune of Rs.79,08,090/-. 3 M/s. Parthiv Enterprises 4. Feeling aggrieved ... Revenue and against the assessee. Ground No.3 8. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.39,34,639/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee firm was having 4 partners namely Mr. Parthiv K. Kapadia, Mr. Shaunak K. Kapadia, Ms. Sonalben S. Kapadia

Yogesh Mehra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Yogesh Mehra, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 201 Krishna Presidency Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Air India Society North South Road No.8, Vs. Bldg. 19Th Flr, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapm6139N

undertaken by EIL for the purpose of carrying on its business as payment by way of loans and advances for the purpose of section 2(22)(e). Yogesh Mehra; AY 12-13 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case ... Tribunal to delete the addition of Rs. 1,64,85,313/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e). 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 02. Brief fact

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms of aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

allowed. 6. The next issue raised in the appeal is regarding taxation of Rs. 1,39,68,442/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. During the year, the assessee has accepted interest bearing loans/advances @12% per annum from group companies to meet the working capital ... requirements on need basis. The AO treated the loan from subsidiary as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,39,68,442/-. The DRP did not accept assessee’s objections and upheld the addition made by AO. The ld.Authorised Representative

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

research agencies. Therefore, the advances cannot be regarded as monies lent to Hansa. In this connection, a reference can be made to section 2(22)(e), which clearly distinguishes between a loan and an advance. There is no lender-borrower relationship between the assessee and Hansa. Similarly

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (E) RG 1, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

research agencies. Therefore, the advances cannot be regarded as monies lent to Hansa. In this connection, a reference can be made to section 2(22)(e), which clearly distinguishes between a loan and an advance. There is no lender-borrower relationship between the assessee and Hansa. Similarly