“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)

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Vinod Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 638/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.638/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

happens to be a Director /shareholder holding more than 10% of the shareholding, learned Assessing Officer treated the same as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), stating that in spite of calling for and allowing sufficient time, the assessee

Faiz Zakir Vali, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veen AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 10Section 132(4)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

after making addition of ` 82,00,000, on account of Faiz Zakir Vali ITA no.65/Nag./2021 deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and ` 2,55,00,000, on account of short term capital gains on sale of land for the year 2010-11 by holding ... attained finality in the absence of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court relied on the decision in the case of CIT v/s Murli Agro Products

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

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

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 666/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44A

Page 4 of 8 total shares of the company. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer held that Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, deemed dividend amounting to Rs.1,04,78,866/- and Rs.41,64,532/- which is restricted to the accumulated profit

Shreekant Ray, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Bhandary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

total income of Rs. 1,05,46,917/- by making an addition of Rs. 94,14,477/- on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the finding of the AO and also observed that despite granting several opportunities as mentioned ... shown accumulated profit of Rs. 4,49,441/-. Since, there was no explanation from the assessee, the AO triggered the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The transaction fell under the category of deemed dividend as the assessee was a beneficial owner of share of shareholding

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. K.S.Chawla & Sons (HUF), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed and the C

ITA 6974/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 6974/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Acit Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (Huf) 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Central Circle – I, Gurugram Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurugram Pan: Aadhk 7622 M

For Appellant: Shri Parikshi Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

concerned, it is observed that it was not based on any seized document and hence cannot be substantiated. It is also observed that section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in this case as none of the directors had more than 10% holding in the applicant money

DCIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Krishna Murthy Ella, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.610/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. C.I.T Vs. Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacpe6389G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

scrutiny and during the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 cannot be invoked for loans taken from the company amounting to Rs.2,45,35,154/-. In response ... taken by the company with interest cannot be treated as loans and advances in the nature of gracious payment which attract provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of the provisions

Samit Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 15.11.2007. The revenue sought to make addition on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph

Malika Roy, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 779/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Arati Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. -3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(2)(1)Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Madhusudhan Babubhai Kocha, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3516/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC herein has erred in law and on facts in reversing the assessment findings making section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of Rs. 310,25,993/- vide following lower appellate discussion:- 2 Madhusudhan Babubhai Kocha “6. I have considered the submission ... appellant and perused the order of the Assessing Officer. The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) which is the bone of contention in this case is reproduced below:- "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - (22) dividend includes— (e) any payment by a company, not being a company

The DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Jayantibhai S Patel, Ahmedbad

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1093/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11) Dy.Cit Shri Jayantibhai S. Patel बनाम/ Gandhinagar Circle, 48, Shankar Society, Part- Vs. Gandhinagar 1, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382424 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adgpp8465R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. K. Patel, Ar 24/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 02.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Against Third Round Of Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In This Case. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y.2010-11 Was Filed By

For Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, AR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

shares of this company. Therefore, the loan given by the Company to the assessee was to be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The second re-assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.12.2017 at total income ... Authority which was decided vide the impugned order and the ld. CIT(A) had restricted the addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of accumulated profit of the company. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The following

Smt. Rinku Chakraborthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1474/BANG/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Shambu Sharma, H, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)

Section 2(22)(e)

which was not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, considering the commercial element in the disputed transaction, the provision of deemed dividend specified under section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be attracted. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below ... transaction between the assessee and the directors and therefore the same cannot be subject to the provisions of deemed dividend as provided under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Regarding this, the contentions of the assessee are summarised as under: i. There was a property owned by the directors

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Majitar Vs Gangtok Rangpo – 737136 [East Sikkim] [Pan : Aacch6217P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/R Revenue By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Evenly Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. As The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Indicate That Apart From The Grounds Raised On Merit, A Common Legal Ground Has Been Raised Challenging The Validity Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings On Account Of Wrong Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act & That The Re-

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Dcitcc-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Constructions, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 841/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit-Cc-2(3) V. Avinash Constructions Room No. 803, 8Th Floor Abil House 2, Ganesh Khind Road Old Cgo Annexe Building Range, Hill Corner, Pune -411007 M. K. Road, Marine Lines Pune, Maharashtra Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

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

revenue read as under: - i. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting Rs.15,26,99,918/- disallowed as deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being an advance received by M/s. Avinash Construction, a partnership firm from M/s. Atmaja Developers ... Atmaja Developers Pvt Ltd., and being a partner of the assessee firm, therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act squarely apply and the impugned advances of ₹.26,66,32,329/- is deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. Based

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Shri Ketan Realities Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Director with the assessee company holding more than 50% shares and 69.25% shares in M/s.Aarav Realty Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will be applicable, which has escaped from assessment to tax. In-response, the assessee filed a letter to treat the original ... ITAT that if the interest has been paid and in the real sense the appellant had not derived any benefit in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked. It is the case of the appellant under consideration that

M/S. Valdel Investments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

ITA 1169/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234Section 234ASection 234B(3)Section 250

facts in bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as deemed dividend by invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the law. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] is not justified ... Appellant has not derived any individual benefit and thus is not a gracious receipt. The said amount would attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) if it was a gracious receipt. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] is not justified in considering the fact that

Nandkumar Yadavrao Tasgaonkar, Dadar (West) vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 3493/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailnandkumar Yadavrao Tasgaonkar, 101, Sumati Krishna Niwas, Shivsena Bhavan Path, ……………. Appellant Near Hotel Ameya, Mumbai-400028. Pan – Aacpt5886F V/S Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400020. Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha – Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha – Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56

which it is holding 10% of shareholding. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act be not applied and the unsecured loan received be not treated as a deemed dividend. It was also observed from the balance ... Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,40,398 was treated as assessee’s deemed dividend income from Four Aces Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. During the assessment proceedings from the profit and loss account, it was observed that the assessee has incurred an interest

Vijay Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 485/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

accumulated profit of Rs. 6,82,751/- in possession of company. The assessee filed justification of advances and contended that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable but the AO rejected assessee’s submission. The matter ultimately travelled upto ITAT, Indore whereupon the ITAT, in a consolidated