← 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)

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

In the result the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2848/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Kishore Kumar Jain, Income Tax, Vs. 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Central Circle -2 (2), Vepery, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A
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

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

ITA 2847/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2012-13

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. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Kishore Kumar Jain, Vs.62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 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

ACIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1942/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the presence of seized material substantiating the nature of deemed dividend transactions and concluding that the addition

ACIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the presence of seized material substantiating the nature of deemed dividend transactions and concluding that the addition

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1940/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the presence of seized material substantiating the nature of deemed dividend transactions and concluding that the addition

Ayaj S. Dhumal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ajay S. Dhumal, Ito-26(2)(4), 229/230, Arun Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacpd 7035 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi
Section 143(1)Section 2(22)(e)

such, the amount received was liable to As such, the amount received was liable to be treated as deemed dividend deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assesse the hands of the assessee ... liable to be taxed as d that the said loan was liable to be taxed as deemed dividend under eemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in the hands of Mr. Dhumal section 2(22)(e) in the hands of Mr. Dhumal. The assessee contested The assessee contested this conclusion

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Dharampal R.Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 307/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

A, C.I.T. Central Cir.- 2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Dharampal R.Agrawal, Nagpur

ITA 293/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

A, C.I.T. Central Cir.- 2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Dharampal R.Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 292/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 23/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 19/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

M/S Thanjavur Commerece Pvt; Ltd., Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 2(22)(e)

confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer treating the loan repayment received from M/s. Mansa Agro Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the following grounds:– 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts ... circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ` 13,92,098, made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2 Thanjavur Commerce Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.182/Nag./2016 2. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised

M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(d)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

ITA 18/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

report in assessee's case and also in case of Shree Agarwal that the transaction is not covered by the exception provided in section 2 (22) (e) (ii) of the IT Act. No adverse inference has been drawn by the AO on the details submitted by the assessee ... directed to be deleted as assessee is engaged in the business of finance & lending which is covered under exception provided in section 2(22)(e) (ii) of the Act. Thus, the said addition is hereby directed to be deleted by upholding the impugned order passed by the learned

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

ITA 172/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

ITA 171/NAG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

ACIT, Central Cirlce-1, Nashik vs. Avinash Knatilal Jain, Jalgaon

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

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

entered in these accounts were mutual. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act are applicable in this case and therefore addition of Rs.3,77,81,102/- was required to be made ... company styled as Maganlal Chhaganlal (P.) Ltd. and 'is a person who has substantial interest in the company' for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He also carries on a proprietary business in the name and style of Rainbow Paints. The company maintains

Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/H of Lat Kanhaiyalal V. Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1799/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 2(2)(e)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1792/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 2(2)(e)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL