“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)

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3565/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Disallowance under section 40A(3) Rs. 4,07,600/- (ii) Disallowance for negative balance Rs. 4,75,075/- (iii) Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) Rs.29,06,914/- 5. The assessee filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under section

Sreeni Parameswaran, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 186/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

That being the case, we do not think the same could be regarded as a loan or advance so as to attract section 2(22)(e) of the Act. SHPL, the company in which the assessee has substantial interest, is in the business of real estate, selling residential houses ... diversion of funds, representing the profit of the company, arises under the circumstances, to ascribe it as coming within the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This is of course subject to the nature of credit for Rs. 10 lac, forming part of Rs. 54.04 lacs, being

Kanta Gupta, Karnal vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 7367/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyaita No.7367 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt. Kanta Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Aefpg 9971 D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No.7368 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Adepk 5887 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 153Section 2(22)(e)

under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 23.12.2009, wherein addition was made of Rs.60,00,000/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) held that deemed dividend can not be taxed in the hands Madhav Arcade. But he directed that ... Shri Surender Gupta and Smt. Kanta Gupta. Hence in these cases, assessment was reopened and the addition was made as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. At the outset, in this case, Learned Counsel for the assessee referred to Explanation - 3 of Section 153, which reads

Y.V.Rajesekhara Babu, Hyderabad vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/VIZ/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.192/Viz/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

profit or loss of the business accrues on day-to-day and gets accumulated at the end of the year. Hence, as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the profit or loss accrued till the date of disbursement of advance is to be considered for the purpose ... assessee will be included for the purpose of computing the accumulated profits. 9. In these circumstances, it is relevant to extract section 2(22)(e) of the Act for the sake of brevity: “2(22)(e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public

T.Naga Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/VIZ/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Manoj Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on addition of Rs.4,73,526/- made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act by alleging I.T.A.No.2412/Del/2023 that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is pertinent to note that the appellant ... Mittal Construction & Real Estate Company Private Limited in which he is a beneficial shareholder, the Ld. AO has invoked deeming provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition of Rs.4,73,526/- to the extent of accumulated profits on the date of giving loan by company

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

case and in law, the AO/ DRP has erred in treating the capital gains of INR 138,47.19,180 as dividend under section 2(22)(d) of the Income- tax Act. 1961 (the Act), out of the total capital gains of INR 275,20,00,000 arising pursuant to capital ... hands of the Appellant by holding that section 115-0 of the Act does not apply in case of deemed dividend as per section 2(22)(d) of the Act and hence, dividend as per section 2(22)(d) of the Act is not exempt under section

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3164/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: the date of search, cannot be sustained u/s 153A of the Act. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,75,075/-.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

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

contingency of an adverse outcome in the SLP. It is Revenue's contention before the Apex Court that the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable in the hands of P&A. This is certainly not permissible because the jurisdictional requirement is that respondents must entertain a belief

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7154/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Deep Chand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

that the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act to assess an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this regard, the ld. counsel submitted that amount so received by the assessee is not in the nature

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji vs. M/S Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 219/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 219/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji. . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

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

firm is in the ordinary course of business and hence they are not in the nature of advances or loans as envisaged in section 2(22)(e). ii) It is an admitted position that the sums so received have been utilized for the business of the Appellant. It is also

Shri Manmohan Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.171/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

assessee is a shareholder of more than 38% of the company. The ld. AO added back amount of Rs.52,89,797/- for contravening section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the amount was added in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ... specific provisions to tax the same. Certain transaction is covered by deeming provision & have been brought in the statute under deeming provision. Same section 2(22)(e), deeming provision has been brought in the statute to cover up transaction. The benefit is not individual but solely on business exigency

Eos Power India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(22)Section 92Section 92C

Pricing Officer also held that the above payments resulting into substantial beneficial ownership in the hand of the respondent becomes deemed dividend under Section 2(22) of the Act to the extent of accumulated profit. The learned Assessing Officer was also advised to look into the same. Order

Eos Power India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6881/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(22)Section 92Section 92C

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

judicial pronouncements / case laws releid upon by the assessee. With regard to ground No.2 and 3, the assessee submitted that the provisons of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act speaks about Deemed Dividend. That means the dividend which is not actually paid by the company or received ... explanation for not disclosing loans and advances received from a company-in i which he was a beneficial shareholder under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) towards addition made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Edgar Braz Afonso, Calangute

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 98/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Edgar Braz Afonso, Calangute

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 97/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji vs. Mrs Natalina Vaz., Caranzalem, Goa

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 112/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji vs. Mrs Natalina Vaz., Caranzalem, Goa

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 111/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji vs. Peter Soccoro Vaz, Caranzalem, Goa

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 108/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)