“accumulated profits”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 2(22)Section 2(22)462 judgments

The decision most relied on for accumulated profits is CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (340 ITR 14), cited in 202 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on accumulated profits

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.

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.

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

324 ITR 263 · 2010 · High Court

111

citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of the beneficial shareholder who receives the benefit of the loan or advance, and not in the hands of the company receiving the loan.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah

290 ITR 433 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

For Section 2(22)(e) to apply, a payment by a company must be in the nature of a loan or advance, and the company must have accumulated profits. Such payments to a concern in which a shareholder, holding more than 10% voting power, has a substantial interest are deemed dividends if the shareholder ultimately benefits, even if routed through different modes or concerns.

Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

318 ITR 376 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) regarding deemed dividends do not apply to transactions between a shareholder and a company that create mutual benefits and obligations, such as trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions.

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

229 ITR 444 · 1998 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

CIT v. Nagindas M. Kapadia

177 ITR 393 · 1989 · High Court

citing judgments

Trade advances arising from genuine commercial transactions are not considered deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The provision applies only to payments in the nature of dividend, not bona fide business transactions.

PCIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex

89 Taxmann.com 80 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The addition of share application money to the income of the assessee under Section 68 is not justified if the assessee has discharged the initial onus by providing complete particulars and documentary evidence of the creditor, and the Revenue has failed to prove otherwise. The Supreme Court has also dismissed the Revenue's SLP in this matter.

Judgments citing accumulated profits

Wep Peripherals Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

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

Private Limited and 45.31% of M/s. Wep Solutions India Ltd. It was also observed by the AO that M/s. Elnova Private Limited is having accumulated profit exceeding Rs.1 Cr as on 31.3.2012 and the loan granted by M/s. Elnova Private Limited is neither for business purposes nor M/s. Elnova Private ... such company on behalf, or for- the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits; but" dividend" does not include— (i) a distribution made in accordance with sub- clause (c) or sub- clause (d) in respect of any share

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

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

ITA 1359/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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:

For Appellant: Shri.DM Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Anoop Hiwase.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 57

applicable 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, accumulated profit as per the explanation 2 to Section 22 do not include the share premium account and the reserve pertaining to the assets. 6. Without Prejudice, the addition u/s.2 ... show cause letter dated 14/12/2017, the assessee was requested to show cause as to why the loan amount to the extent of accumulated profits i.e. Reserves & Surplus as appearing in the Balance Sheet of M/S. Shreerang Mercantile (India) Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.70,41,658/- should not be added

Jp Morgan Funds, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2430/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(b)Section 250

values was paid to the shareholders. The Supreme Court held that as per section 2(22)(d) of the Act, the payment which represented accumulated profits should be regarded as dividend and taxed accordingly. The balance amounts (representing the pro-rata distribution of assets) should be treated as a capital ... receipt. It further held that in order to compute capital gains, if any, in the hands of the shareholder, the portion attributable towards accumulated profits (dividend) should not be considered and the balance amount, if any should be taken into account while computing capital gains, if any. 2.3 Given

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

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

ITA 3192/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

learned AO had disallowed the payment received from the sister concerns u/s 2(22)(e) to the extent of accumulated profits in the respective companies as on 31.03.2013. The copy of the Balance Sheet with schedules and assessment orders for the AY 2013-14 is enclosed herewith. From the above ... accepted the disallowances w/s 2(22)(e) and filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. Since all the accumulated profits of the sister concerns as on 31.03.2013 is added to the income and hence there are no accumulated profits left which require to be added

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7175/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), M/S Gama Entertainment 436-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Systems Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Vs. 103, A Wing, Sai Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Gowandi Station Road, Deonar, Gowandi (East), Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aadcg 3492 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Parth Navandar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Parth Navandar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 68

share premium received. The Assessing Officer was of objects of the share premium received. The Assessing Officer was of the view that accumulated profits of the ass the view that accumulated profits of the assessee essee-company were brought back in the price of the share premium, therefore, in view

M/S. Devanam Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2644/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

substantial interest in the payers company (The assessee is having 74.5% share in KPPL). Further, it was observed by the A.O. that KPPL had accumulated profits to the extent of Rs.4,95,79,456 as on 31.03.2013 while a payment to the extent of Rs.2 ... section, namely, section 2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act, which reads as follow:- 2(22) "dividend" includes— (a) any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, whether capitalised or not, if such distribution entails the release by the company to its shareholders of all or any part of the assets

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

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

ITA 1806/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

balance sheet of lender company i.e. MAAD Realtors and Infra Ltd., as on 31/03/2013, the total reserves and surplus was Rs.3,47,29,227/- (accumulated profits) and hence, the advance / loan given by MAAD Realtors and Infra Ltd., to DM Logistic Pvt. Ltd., where both the companies are having common

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

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

ITA 1802/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68

such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits;” 16. Thus, as per the provisions of aforesaid section, loan or advance paid by a company shall be considered as deemed dividend on fulfillment ... such a payment for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act should be to the extent to which the company possesses accumulated profits. As noted by the Assessing Officer accumulated profit of the company was Rs. 34,92,721. Thus, in view of the above

Tree Hill Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

that the difference between the total amount standing to the credit of the capital account, in the form of capital contribution, interest and accumulated profits and the final amount paid to the assessee at the time of retirement is goodwill. The goodwill as per the submissions ... placed reliance on various judgments to substantiate the claim that, the amount paid to assessee over and above the capital contribution is accumulated profits in the current account of the assessee and interest does not result in capital gain. It is settled Page 12 of 20 proposition that, when

JCIT OSD-CC-7(4), Mumbai vs. Shalimar Houseing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4112/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 4112 & 4083/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-Cc-7(4) Vs. M/S. Shalimar Housing Room No. 659, Aaykar & Finance Ltd., Bhavan, Mk Road, 505, Shalimar Morya Mumbai – 400020. Park, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs6732N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B.K.Bagchi.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 06.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. B.K.Bagchi.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

reflects position for one year and does not reflect all the other sources of funds available. The finds can be available out of past accumulated profits, loans or borrowings of lenders, capital Infusion in business, advances / deposits etc. Further, the funds available from such activities are not captured from

ACIT -19(3), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Ramona Pinto, Mumbai

ITA 64/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – 19(3) V. Mrs. Ramona Pinto 2Nd Floor, Room No. 206 Flat No. 52, Ivorick, St. Cyrils Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Mumbai - 400050 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Agipp7514N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitish Joshi Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nitish JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

already given her share as per the family arrangement earlier. That there was no balance available in her capital account and there was no accumulated profit in the firm. That the amount of crores was given for relinquishing of rights, claims and demands of any nature whatsoever, against the firm ... P.N.Writer & Co. and the question of the balance in her capital account being returned back to her did not arise. There were also no accumulated profits of the firm to the extent of ₹.28 crores. 7. In view of all the above, the Assessing Officer held that the arbitration award

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

ITA 4505/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits...................... 7.6 As referred to above, given the nature of the share of the partners of the appellant firm in the company M/s. K.C. Kapadia

M/S Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ircle-9 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7427/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 68

submitted by assessee company from Page 42 to Page 86 of PB (As per Page 57 of PB), the Opening reserves & surplus (self generated accumulated profits) was Rs. 59,99,665 as on 1st April 2011 and closing balance was Rs. 71,03,547. As per Page ... assessee company from Page 154 to Page 176 of PB 1. As per Page 158 of PB 1, the Opening reserves & surplus (self generated accumulated profits) was only Rs. 4634 as on 1st April 2011 and closing balance was only Rs. 1,87,459. As per Page

M/S Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ircle-9 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7426/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 68

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

ITA 411/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia with Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits;....” In Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT: 338 ITR 538 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court observed as under: “10. ......we are of the opinion that

M/S Assetz Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the grounds 3

ITA 563/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

made under section 2(22)(e). 3.4 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that there being no ‘accumulated profit’ in the books of account of M/s. Assetz Property Management Services P Ltd., no addition can be made under section 2(22)(e). 3.5 The learned ... erred in confirming that deferred tax credit of Rs.8,59,35,099 should be included while computing the accumulated profit of Rs.4,42,41,971 as on 31.3.2013. 3.6 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, addition made under section 2(22)(e) amounting to Rs.11

Pravin Laxmichand Chheda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pravin Laxmichand Vs. Acit – 24(3) Chheda Room No. 413, 4Th 302, Aavishkar Society, Floor, Piramal Sv Road, Irla Bridge Chambers, Parel Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc1278P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Yogesh Thar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. (A) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer Of Assessing The Loan Taken From Sadguru Krupa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Herein Referred As "Company") On 05.05.2013 Of Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. Rs.25,00,000/- As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (B) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Company Did Not Have Accumulated Profits As On The Date On Which The Loan Was Advanced. (C) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Manner Of Computation Of Accumulated Profits Adopted By The Learned Assessing Officer. (D) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Company Had Followed The Principles Of Revenue Recognition Laid Down In Accounting Standard 9 Issued By Icai. (E) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law In Relying On The Statement Of Mr. Dllip Porwal Without Giving Your Appellant The Opportunity To Cross-Examine Him. (F) Your Appellant Prays That The Additions Made U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Against The Provisions Of Law & Against The Principals Of Natural Justice & May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Yogesh Thar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.DR

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

Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the company did not have accumulated profits as on the date on which the loan was advanced. (c) The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming the manner of computation of accumulated profits adopted ... fixed rate of dividend and falls within the definition of the shareholder as required u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and worked out accumulated profits at page 5 Para 5.4 of the order as under: Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. 5.4 The working of Accumulated profit can thus

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Anoop Thatai, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6362/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit of any such shareholder to the extent to which the company neither case possesses accumulated profits” . According to Ld. CIT (A), case of the appellant is squarely covered by this limb as it is payment by a company for the individual ... benefits of any such shareholder to the extent which the company possesses accumulated profits. According to CIT (A), payment has been received by the assessee fromM/s SKA Enterprises, which in turn has received the payments from two companies in which public are not substantial interested and assessee isholding not less

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6361/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)