← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Rakesh Arora, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3610/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69A

ITA No.3610/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI

Anmol Himanshu Patel Legal Heir of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4) Now Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1479/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Addpol Chemspecialities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodra, Vadodra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1641/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

addition of Rs. 16,00,000 on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the act without appreciating that provision of section 2(22)(e) is applicable only in hands of a shareholder being person/ or to any concern in which such shareholder is having substantial interest ... shareholdings as on 31.03.2012 in Addpol Chem Specialties Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer observed that as per provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act payment by way of loan / advance to the extent of accumulated profits by a closely held company is to be treated

Snehal Ravjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1418/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

dividend and also objected to the reopening of assessment. The assessing officer considered the submission however made addition of Rs.56,09,015/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal and submitted that the issue ... covered by CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12-06-2017 wherein it is clarified Section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable in trade advances and relied upon various High Court judgments. Ld. CIT(A) held that the I.T.A No. 1418/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

Mr Mukund Vallabhdas Thakker, Mumbai vs. Dycit. CC 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5904/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09 Mr. Mukund Vallabhdas Deputy Commissioner Of Thakker, Income Tax, Ground Floor, Vs. Central Circle-4(2)(1), Persian Apartments, Aayakar Bhavan, 434, Vp Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Aaapt3952A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually Appeared) For Revenue : Shri Anurag Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Delhi, Dated 27-08-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs. 9,73,306/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

name of the assessee amounts to advancing of loan by the company to the assessee and which triggers the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and hence, the same was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 3. The assessee thereafter carried the matter ... business and merely because motor-car is registered in the name of the assessee, it cannot be held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act get triggered. 3 4. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered, but not found acceptable to the Ld.CIT

Sunil Madhyani, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 586/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.586/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Madhyani Ward No.24, Behind Hotel Malwa Durg (C.G.)- 491 001 Pan: Apipm9839G

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

company to obtain loans exceeding Rs.25 crores; b) the transaction conferred substantial benefit to the company and therefore falls outside the ambit of section 2(22)(e). c) the advance was in the nature of land advance pursuant to an agreement and duly recorded in the books of the company ... explanation or documentary evidence regarding the advance of Rs.1,12,09,000/- received from the company or to demonstrate why the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the A.O. held that the amount of 4 Sunil Madhyani Vs. DCIT, Cirle-1(1), Bhilai

Universal Auto Gears LLP, Kolar vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1370/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

during the year. The AO had treated the loan received from the said Universal Carburizing Works Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act since the company as well as the assessee are having common shareholders. Even though the assessee explained that the loan ... substantial stake in the assessee, in order to protect the assessee’s interest, the said loan was offered. The AO relied on section 2(22)(e)(ii) of the Act and concluded that the loan amount of Rs. 3,73,28,315/- was liable to be taxed u/s. 2(22

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2274/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 131Section 132

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2273/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2272/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2271/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2270/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 2269/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 2268/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

ITA 2267/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 2266/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

ITA 2265/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 544/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

ITA Nos.539 to 544/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 543/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

ITA Nos.539 to 544/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 542/DEL/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

ITA Nos.539 to 544/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD