← 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)

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

Sciences Pvt. Ltd., in excess of 150% of sales amounting to Rs.121,11,83,360/- as loans and advances for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has considered excess payment by M/s. Mythri Labs Pvt. Ltd., to M/s. MSN Life Sciences ... purchases or sales as trade advances and the remaining amount of advance has been treated as loans or advances within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts simply held that, payments in excess of 200% of sales should

Binoy John, Trivandrum vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Cochin, Cochin/Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on grounds of delay and latches

ITA 855/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Binoy John .......... Appellant Tc 2/391, Puthnveetil, Ulloor, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695011 [Pan: Acppj3562K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central, Cochin Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Cochin (Pr. Cit) Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Doctor Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also A Director In The Company Credence Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Acit

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 5

Director made an advance of Rs. 3.42 crores to the appellant which amounts to deemed dividend within the meaning of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice

Ponnamparambath Ashique, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1) Tps, Kozhikode

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

ITA 606/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ponnamparambath Ashique .......... Appellant Koyenco House, West Hill, Kozhikode 673005 [Pan: Acmpa5569N] Vs. Acit, Circle- 1(1) & Tps, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19.06.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also Managing Director Og M/S. Platino Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Return Of Income For Ay 2010-11 Was Filed On 17.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 25,18,810/-. There Was No Scrutiny Assessment. Subsequently The Ao Received Information That The Appellant Is Holding Shares Of 25%

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Autos (P) Ltd., in which the appellant had 25% shareholdings. According to the AO, the loans so advanced fall within the definition of section 2(22)(e) the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Accordingly formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax and issued a notice ... additional evidences. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of the AO to decide afresh the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of the loans/advances received by the appellant from the said two companies. 4 Ponnamparambath Ashique 7. In the result

Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), Delhi

ITA 1808/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Thanjavur Commerce Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

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

ITA 291/NAG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 154Section 2(22)(e)

quantum appeal being ITA no.182/Nag./2016, has already deleted the addition of ` 31,92,098, as made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide assessment order dated 28/02/2013, succeeded by rectification order dated 17/05/2013, passed under section ... instant case, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, has affirmed the addition of ` 9,72,899, under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on account of deemed dividend towards loan received from Shri Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. On the contrary, the learned A.R. has submitted that

Thanjavur Commerce Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

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

ITA 290/NAG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 154Section 2(22)(e)

quantum appeal being ITA no.182/Nag./2016, has already deleted the addition of ` 31,92,098, as made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide assessment order dated 28/02/2013, succeeded by rectification order dated 17/05/2013, passed under section ... instant case, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, has affirmed the addition of ` 9,72,899, under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on account of deemed dividend towards loan received from Shri Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. On the contrary, the learned A.R. has submitted that

Ravinder Rao Takkallapelly, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Chiranjeevi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.477/Hyd/2025 2 “ 1. Against Incorrect Addition under Section 2(22)(e): The learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in treating the amount of Rs.42,34,956 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) without correctly appreciating the factual

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

ITA 1349/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act as the director of the assessee company had substantial interest in the companies from which it has taken loans ... Directors are holding any substantial interest in those companies from whom assessee has received unsecured loans and to explain whether provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act should be applied or not. However, in written submissions, vide letter dated 14.12.2018, it was submitted that provisions of section 2

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

ITA 1336/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act as the director of the assessee company had substantial interest in the companies from which it has taken loans ... Directors are holding any substantial interest in those companies from whom assessee has received unsecured loans and to explain whether provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act should be applied or not. However, in written submissions, vide letter dated 14.12.2018, it was submitted that provisions of section 2

Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Central Circle, Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act as the director of the assessee company had substantial interest in the companies from which it has taken loans ... Directors are holding any substantial interest in those companies from whom assessee has received unsecured loans and to explain whether provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act should be applied or not. However, in written submissions, vide letter dated 14.12.2018, it was submitted that provisions of section 2

Dr. H M Venkatappa, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 2176/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri E Balasubramanian C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT and Shri Subramanian S
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

withdrawn by Dr. Venkatappa from KDSPL for personal use and therefore, the same should be considered as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, since Dr. Venkatappa is a substantial shareholder in M/s KDSPL. Thus, the AO issued show cause notice proposing to make an addition ... held that the cash, though unaccounted, was withdrawn from the company for personal use and hence, qualifies as a deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The fact that these transactions were not recorded in the company’s books further supports this conclusion. Consequently, the AO assessed

Gaurav Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-22(3), New Delhi

ITA 3475/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1St Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeopb3197D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3475/Del/2019, For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi’S As Many Orders Dated 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 In Case Nos. 10589, 10590 & 10591, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly invoked section 148/147 reopening mechanism against the assessee in order to assess section 2(22)(e) deemed dividends amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, in his hands, in the course of assessment framed on 08.12.2016 and partly upheld ... That being the case, I hereby reject the department’s stand treating the same as non-genuine transactions to delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed addition in light of CIT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.). Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s instant

Gaurav Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-22(3), New Delhi

ITA 3474/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1St Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeopb3197D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3475/Del/2019, For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi’S As Many Orders Dated 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 In Case Nos. 10589, 10590 & 10591, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly invoked section 148/147 reopening mechanism against the assessee in order to assess section 2(22)(e) deemed dividends amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, in his hands, in the course of assessment framed on 08.12.2016 and partly upheld ... That being the case, I hereby reject the department’s stand treating the same as non-genuine transactions to delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed addition in light of CIT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.). Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s instant

Gaurav Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-22(3), New Delhi

ITA 3473/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1St Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeopb3197D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3475/Del/2019, For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi’S As Many Orders Dated 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 In Case Nos. 10589, 10590 & 10591, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly invoked section 148/147 reopening mechanism against the assessee in order to assess section 2(22)(e) deemed dividends amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, in his hands, in the course of assessment framed on 08.12.2016 and partly upheld ... That being the case, I hereby reject the department’s stand treating the same as non-genuine transactions to delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed addition in light of CIT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.). Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s instant

Yashvardhan Gokuldas Binani, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (3) (5), Mumbai

ITA 4133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the nature of the transactions and confirming the addition made by the AO under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The Learned NFAC failed in appreciating that considering the nature of transactions, section 2(22)(e ... aforesaid companies (a) 16.34% in Decon Mercantile and (b) 21.47% in Francis Klein & Co. Therefore, the provisions related to deemed dividend contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were attracted. Thus, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income in the nature of deemed dividend had escaped

Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi

The appeals is allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-30, Anand Niketan, Circle-12(2), Basement, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacs2041N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca; Ms Pallavi Sharma, Ca & Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.208/18-19/Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 18.03.2016, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

e) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made by the Ld. AO by invoking section 2(22)(e) of the Act and treating the amounts received by the Appellant from one Sara Industrial Estate Ltd as deemed dividend. In this regard ... Even though specifically confronted, the assessee has not come forward as to how in the specific facts of the case the provisions of section 2(22) (e) were not applicable. It is noticed from the share holding pattern of the assessee company filed vide letter dated 07,03.2016 that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2849/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. Vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. : 13.03.2025 : 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs.5,97,36,000/- when in section 2(22)(e), the key condition is that a loan or advance is given to a shareholder, a director, or their relative by the company & that ... advance must hold at least 10% of the voting power in the company & that in the present case all the parameters that trigger section 2(22)(e) of the Act are existent. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the said advances were made from