← 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)

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1068/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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 1067/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

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

ITA 1059/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

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

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1053/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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.” ITA Nos.1050 to 1053/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1122/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 Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1052/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor 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 ... 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 Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1051/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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.” ITA Nos.1050 to 1053/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1122/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 Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1050/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor 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 ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7.1, Kolkata vs. Ms. Soyuz Trading Company Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 336/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

justified in law in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act ignoring the facts that Section 2(22)(e ) does not contain any such specific provision or restriction and no where provides as to who is to be taxed in respect of such ... Calcutta High Court passed in the case of PCIT vs. Suprabha Industries Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble High Court has held thus: “Section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961- Deemed Dividend (loans and advances to share holders)- Assessment year 2012-13 – Assessee company received unsecured loan from

M/S Lighthouse Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4759/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Kapil SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68

income of Rs. 18,98,78,394/-. The ld. A O made following additions which are in dispute before usrelated deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act amount to Rs. 12,00,53,000/-; unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act amount to Rs.6

Mustasq Ahmad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1351/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-2014. Mustaq Ahmad, The Income Tax Officer, No.160, Mustafa Centre, Vs. International Taxation, Usman Road, Ward 1(1) T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. Pan: Adepa 1181B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, C.A, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai-16 [‘Cit(A)’ Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Five (5) Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Counsel For The Assessee Has Vehemently Pressed A Ground No.2 That There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ In Short). G.No.2 Is As Under: ‘’2. At The Outset, The Ao Has No Jurisdiction To Reopen The Assessment, As All The Material Facts Were With The Ao Even At The Time Of Completing The Original Assessment & There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice. The Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.148 Of The Act Is Ab Initio Void & On This Ground Alone The Reassessment Deserves To Be Cancelled’’.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

notice dated 10.07.2015 u/s 142(1) had specifically asked information qua amount of loan (Opening and Closing Balance) and the applicability of section 2(22)(e) of the Act which can be seen from the questionnaire at point Sr. No. (xiv). The assessee duly replied to the AO vide letter

Akhil Taneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3560/DEL/2023[A.Y. 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit Vs M/S. Gen X Commodities (P) Ltd., Central Circle-29 Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave New Delhi New Delhi-110027 Pan-Aaaca2303H Appellant Respondent Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Revenue By Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

commodities Ltd, have more than 10% shareholding in M/s Jaypee Capital Services Ltd. accordingly the Ld. A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act made addition on account of deemed dividend. 15.1 The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action ... case. 15.9 Your honor, It is a settled law that the payments made against the business transactions are outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This fact was also explained to the Ld. A.O. during the assessment proceedings. However the A.O. without applying his mind applied

Iswar Chand Dubey, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68 (1), Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Punit Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Mehrunnisan Sherwani, Okhla vs. Income Tax Officer W 28(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4728/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

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

Subhash Chander Oberoi, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax - 26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsubhash Chander Oberoi, Saidham Building, Dr. Jawkar Lane, Sion Chunabhatti Road, Mumbai - 400022 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Aadpo9185B V/S Acit, 26(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Learned Assessing Officer in treating the amount of Rs. 1,20,06,226/- received from M/s. Agiv (India) Pvt. Ltd. as advance under section 2(22)(e). Reasons assigned by him for doing the same are wrong and insufficient. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made by treating the amount received by the assessee as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpay Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4362/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

APPEAL- (a) 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming a protective addition of ₹2,04,33,430 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without proper appreciation of facts and applicable laws. 4. A) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the protective ... addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee company under section 2(22)(a) of substantive assessment made or proposed in the hands of any other person involved, rendering the said addition bad in law, arbitrary, and liable to be deleted. B) The Learned

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

received by the Small Industries Bank”. The following were the relevant observations by the Hon’ble High Court: “14. Dividend is defined in Section 2(22) of the IT Act to, inter alia, include any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, which entails releasing any assets by the company ... shareholders. In terms of Explanation 2 to Section 2(22) of the said Act, the expression accumulated profits includes all company profits up to the date of distribution or payment thereof. It appears that the transfer of profits of Petitioner to IDBI in terms of Section 29(2) of SIDBI

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)

company M/s Olympus Realtors'Pvt. Ltd. at nil instead of that of M/s Orient Craft Ltd.for the purpose of application of section 2(22)(e). v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that there has been ... which have been routed through different entities to the assessee with the only Sh. Krishan Kant Kohli intention to subvert the provisions of sections 2(22)(e) would constitute deemed dividend. (vii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

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)

company M/s Olympus Realtors'Pvt. Ltd. at nil instead of that of M/s Orient Craft Ltd.for the purpose of application of section 2(22)(e). v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that there has been ... which have been routed through different entities to the assessee with the only Sh. Krishan Kant Kohli intention to subvert the provisions of sections 2(22)(e) would constitute deemed dividend. (vii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd., Chennai

Appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/CHNY/2024[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.404/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd, Corporate Ward 3(1) 761, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaact 1230A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. S. Nagarajan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

erred in holding that assessee is not a share holder in M/s. MCTM Corporation Pvt. Ltd. So, the first condition of section 2(22)(e) is not satisfied. 6. The CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. National Travel Agency ... need not necessarily be a member of the company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) gets attracted. 7. The CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gopal and sons