← All Phrases

“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
99
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
81
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
64
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
53
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
46
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

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS 2 1, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3065/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 194ASection 201

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT CC - 3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3063/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024
Section 194ASection 201

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3061/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024
Section 194ASection 201

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2802/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 194ASection 201

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

such company by way of dividends (whether interim or otherwise) on or after the 1st day of June, 1997, whether out of current or accumulated profits shall be charged to additional income-tax (hereafter referred to as tax on distributed profits) at the rate of ten per cent ... domestic company on its profits/amount payable on declaration, distribution or payment, as the case may be, of amount as dividend out of accumulated profits. Therefore the argument that DDT is paid on behalf of the shareholder and has to be regarded as payment of liability of the shareholder, discharged

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6363/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Krishan Kant Kohli Dcit C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Central Circle-Ii, South Extension, Part-1 Vs. Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Krishan Kant Kohli Central Circle-Ii A-2, Geetanjali Gurgaon, Vs. Enclave, Haryana New Delhi Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the accumulated profits of M/s Olympus Realtors Pvt. Ltd. shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining deemed dividenddespite the provisions of deemed dividend ... providing thatthe accumulated profits of the company advancing the sum by way of loan or advance to the shareholder shall be taken into consideration. (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in working out and taking into consideration

Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5720/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Krishan Kant Kohli Dcit C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Central Circle-Ii, South Extension, Part-1 Vs. Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Krishan Kant Kohli Central Circle-Ii A-2, Geetanjali Gurgaon, Vs. Enclave, Haryana New Delhi Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the accumulated profits of M/s Olympus Realtors Pvt. Ltd. shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining deemed dividenddespite the provisions of deemed dividend ... providing thatthe accumulated profits of the company advancing the sum by way of loan or advance to the shareholder shall be taken into consideration. (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in working out and taking into consideration

ITO, Ward- 17(4), New Delhi vs. Navya Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5565/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriincome Tax Officer Vs. M/S Navya Securities Pvt. Ward-17(4) Ltd., B-2, Jangpura Room No. 225D, Extension, Cr Building, I.P. Estate New Delhi – 110014 New Delhi -2 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacn3106H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katosh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 71(2)

valuation of shares is computed under rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. M/s KR Chawla Consulting Pvt. Ltd. had huge accumulated profits at the time of subscribing the shares and the immovable properties held by the said investee company and the advances made by it were towards ... crores 5 ITO, Ward-17(4) Vs. M/s Navya Securities Pvt. Ltd. at the end of FY 2012-13, the company had accumulated profit of Rs. 4.36 crores as on 31.03.2012 and the losses suffered during that year aggregated to Rs. 0.32 crore only. At the time of subscribing

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

from the sale of flat A-7/72 in Ahmedabad remained unexplained. Additionally, the assessee failed to furnish details on shareholding patterns, accumulated profits, and the inter-company loans within the group. Although the assessee claimed that these loans were for trade advances, no supporting evidence was provided, despite several

Sms Tolls and Developers, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case the working of accumulated profit for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act is unjustified, arbitrary and highly excessive. 5. The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw ... assessee holds substantial interest. It was 3 SMS Tolls and Developers Ltd. alleged in the reasons recorded for re–opening that SSIL had accumulated profit at the end of the year of ` 8,90,70,728, and that the assessee has received loan of ` 107,70,00,00, therefore

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

such as common substantial shareholding of Shri MSN Reddy in the Appellant Company, two recipient companies and the availability of accumulated profits by way of reserves in the hands of the appellant company, have been satisfied. The AO analyzed the details of the opening balance, sales, purchases, receipts, payments ... factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this regard, he relied upon

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

such as common substantial shareholding of Shri MSN Reddy in the Appellant Company, two recipient companies and the availability of accumulated profits by way of reserves in the hands of the appellant company, have been satisfied. The AO analyzed the details of the opening balance, sales, purchases, receipts, payments ... factors must be considered: whether the payment was a loan or advance and whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. Unless the transactions are in the nature of loans and advances, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. In this regard, he relied upon

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Persistent Systems Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 595/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14Section 14ASection 250

rule 8D(2)(iii). It has further argued that the exempt income arises purely from investment of surplus funds representing post tax accumulated profits of the earlier years. It has further stated that the Company had not borrowed any funds for the purpose of investing in securities to earn income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Persistent Systems Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 590/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14Section 14ASection 250

rule 8D(2)(iii). It has further argued that the exempt income arises purely from investment of surplus funds representing post tax accumulated profits of the earlier years. It has further stated that the Company had not borrowed any funds for the purpose of investing in securities to earn income

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Persistent Systems Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1478/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14Section 14ASection 250

rule 8D(2)(iii). It has further argued that the exempt income arises purely from investment of surplus funds representing post tax accumulated profits of the earlier years. It has further stated that the Company had not borrowed any funds for the purpose of investing in securities to earn income

Ramesh Nagindas Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1482/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

taken by the appellant from Mahavir Submersible P Ltd. and holding the as deemed dividend and thereby making an addition to the extent of accumulated profit of Rs. 2593,812/-. Ramesh Ngaindas Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2013-14 - 2– 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case ... taken by the appellant from Mahavir Submersible P Ltd. and holding the as deemed dividend and thereby making an addition to the extent of accumulated profit of Rs. 25,93,812/-. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition

Mr. Akbar Abdulali, Prop. Faiz and Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 521/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailakbar Humayun Abdulali, Prop. Faize & Company, Unit No.5, Alahi Baug, 75, Abdul Rehman Stree, ……………. Appellant Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400003 Pan: Aabps6866F

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 3

which the public was not substantially interested, the payment was by way of advance or loan to the shareholder and the company had sufficient accumulated profits up to the date of payment, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 28/09/2015 passed under section 3 143(3) read with section ... substantial shareholding. Since the other conditions as provided in section 2(22)(e) of the Act were satisfied, the AO by considering the accumulated profit at the end of the last year and proportionate profit of the current year up to the last date of receipt of loan made

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5826/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Dcit, Circle 27(1), Vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi Block-5, Gripwel House, C-6 & C-7, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (Pan: Aaacu0454D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyen Sethi, Advocate Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 04.06.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

earlier, we wish to mention that as per Section-2(22)(e) of the Act, . the amount of deemed dividend shall not exceed the accumulated profit of the company which had advanced loan to other company. In the present case, the accumulated profits of M/s Gripwel Fasteners

Purnendu Roy, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

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

taken loan of Rs.3,33,60,000/- from M/s. East India Health Care Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee is 66.22% shareholder. Since the accumulated profit of the company was Rs.2,99,87,804/-, ld. AO made the impugned addition which has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) obtaining ... 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;” 08. We observe that assessee who is 62.22% shareholder in M/s. East India Health Care Pvt. Ltd. The accumulated profit of the company