← All Phrases

“Section 2(22)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(22)685 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(22) is CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (319 ITR 204), cited in 378 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(22)

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.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT
5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court
261
citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

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.

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT
263 ITR 143 · 2003 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

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.

Judgments citing Section 2(22)

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

show-caused the assessee as to why the said credits be not treated as income of the assessee under the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 32 24. In response to the queries of the ld. AO, assessee made submissions that the aforesaid loan/transactions would ... 2(22)(e) as the assessee held substantial shares in SEPL (over 10%). He observed that all the ingredients of the provisions of section 2(22) (e) were present in the transactions made by the assessee with SPEL and that the deeming fiction of the said section was duly attracted

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

show-caused the assessee as to why the said credits be not treated as income of the assessee under the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 32 24. In response to the queries of the ld. AO, assessee made submissions that the aforesaid loan/transactions would ... 2(22)(e) as the assessee held substantial shares in SEPL (over 10%). He observed that all the ingredients of the provisions of section 2(22) (e) were present in the transactions made by the assessee with SPEL and that the deeming fiction of the said section was duly attracted

Ramji Harakchand Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5362/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Rs.4.14 Crores for year ending as on 31/03/2013 and Rs.4.18 Crores for the year ending 31/03/2012. Accordingy, he invoked the deeming provision of Section 2(22)(e) and made addition of Rs.81,75,000/- u/s. 2(22)(e) in the following manner:- Name of the Date of debit Peak

Sumitkumar Devchandbhai Savaliya, Bodakdev vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 964/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

said company, which as per the Assessing Officer was taxable as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that there was commercial expediency behind the said company giving loans to the assessee ... acquire such agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to such loans and advances provided by the company to it’s Directors for commercial purposes. However

Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya, Jaipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1155/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 2(22)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Tajmeet Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(7), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 420/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, A.Yr. : 2012-13 Tajmeet Kaur, Vs. Ito, Ward 29(7) F-101, Radhey Mohan Delhi Drive Bandh Road Ghadipur, New Delhi – 74 (Pan: Aaipk0521E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

justified in upholding the order of the AO for the addition of Rs. 20,34,000/- on account of deemed divided under section 2(22)(e) of the Act as the assessee received the return of amount of loan from the company. This addition is not as per the provisions ... appellant remained on non-compliance during the assessment proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the AO found that provisions of section 2(22)(e) was squarely applicable to the appellant and therefore an amount of Rs. 20,34,000/- was added back to the income

JCIT(OSD), Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (India) Ltd, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

demerger of an undertaking as deemed release I distribution of assets by the Appellant to its shareholders as dividend under provisions of section 2(22) of the Act. 2.2 Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 6– shareholders of Appellant is considered as distribution of dividend under section 2(22) of the Act, quantum of dividend which is paid by way of specie distribution of assets needs to be considered as market value

Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

demerger of an undertaking as deemed release I distribution of assets by the Appellant to its shareholders as dividend under provisions of section 2(22) of the Act. 2.2 Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 6– shareholders of Appellant is considered as distribution of dividend under section 2(22) of the Act, quantum of dividend which is paid by way of specie distribution of assets needs to be considered as market value

ACIT 2(1)(1), Agra vs. Madhukar Kapur, Agra

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 376/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalacit, Vs. Shri Madhukar Kapur Circle-2(1)(1) 64-Surya Nagar, Agra Agra "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpk8849G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

without appreciating the facts of the case, especially that the case of the assessee was squarely covered under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Agra being erroneous in law and on facts ... appellate discussion at page 3 onwards has quoted earlier order in the assessee’s case itself for preceding assessment 2009-10 deleting identical Section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition relating to buy-back of shares, forming subject matter of adjudication herein. 4. We make it clear that although

M/S Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/DEL/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

Subrata Roy held majority share holding in both the companies. The CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. The CIT(A) observed that SIFCL was holding only 0.002% shareholding in the assessee company, thus, the condition ... rather, these amounts represent reimbursement/sharing of expenses as per their mutual business understanding. Assessee is not a shareholder of SIFCL hence, provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied at the very threshold In this regard, reliance is placed on the following case laws wherein it was held that

Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer, Bhilai, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 71/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

For Appellant: S/shri Milind Bhusari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

accumulated profit is more than the total loans i.e, Rs.1,45,75,000/- the entire amount is assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and added to the total income. 9.2 The appellant has not furnished any explanation with regard to this addition despite repeated ... Authorized Representatives of both the parties. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which reads as under: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- *** *** *** *** *** (22) “dividend” includes- *** *** *** *** *** (e) any payment by a company

Manjit Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6534/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

2(22)(e) 3. The Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.64,01,819/- made by the AO invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. NFAC as well the AO failed to appreciate that ... advances or loan in the hands of the Appellant. Thus, addition of Rs. 64,01,819/- treating the same as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. 4. The Ld. NFAC and the AO failed

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not justify in confirming the addition of Rs 90100000 under section 2(22) (e) out of the total addition of Rs.393410000 made by the Ld. Assessing Officer whereas the actual nature of the financial transaction between holding ... fully at the end the financial year mutually. 3. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in invoking of section 2(22) (e) of the Act on the ground that the higher pick balance should be considered as deemed dividend for the transaction which

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not justify in confirming the addition of Rs 90100000 under section 2(22) (e) out of the total addition of Rs.393410000 made by the Ld. Assessing Officer whereas the actual nature of the financial transaction between holding ... fully at the end the financial year mutually. 3. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in invoking of section 2(22) (e) of the Act on the ground that the higher pick balance should be considered as deemed dividend for the transaction which

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. Surjit Singh Amrik Singh Saini, Mumbai

ITA 4029/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CA &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

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

appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing ... after examination of the ledger accounts of the recipient company, observed that the basic ingredients of ‘deemed dividend' as defined under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, such as common substantial shareholding of Shri MSN Reddy in the Appellant Company, two recipient companies and the availability of accumulated profits

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Msn Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 1123/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

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

fact that the outstanding de'bit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Msn Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1122/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Bleand

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

appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company ... after examination of the ledger accounts of the recipient company, observed that the basic ingredients of ‘deemed dividend’ as defined under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, such as common substantial shareholding of Shri MSN Reddy in the Appellant Company, two recipient companies and the availability of accumulated profits

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

ITA 1072/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

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

appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing

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

ITA 1071/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing