← 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)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Subash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 3054/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

Undisclosed income from sale of closing stock - Rs. 11,70,847/- of preceding year (15) Deemed dividend added back under section 2(22)(e)- Rs. 44,93,268/- (16) Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IB 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Automotives Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam Mp

ITA 555/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36

Page 3 of 10 M/s Shirani Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2014-15 where it was held that that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company who was lending money to it. Further reliance was placed ... Nagpur): Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding in terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend- HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in Page 4 of 10 M/s Shirani

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cenrtalcircle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Vijaynagar Food and Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 246/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 246/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Vijaynagar Food & Income Tax, Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadcv 9495 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

only assess undisclosed income consequent to search action. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the explanation 3(b) to section 2(22)(e) is an independent provision and the provisions of section 2(32) do not match ‘mutatis mutandis’ apply to the present case. (iv) Any other ... legal provisions on deemed dividend as explained above and the facts of the case are in order and hence the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted in view of specific explanation in section 2(32) of the Act as to when a shareholder

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1)Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Sms Shivnath Infrasstructure Pvt Ltd., Durg, Durg(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 18 ITA No.87/RPR/2017 & ITA No.107/RPR/2016 In view of the above facts ... associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 22. On the issues raised u/s 263, assessee has made

M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 18 ITA No.87/RPR/2017 & ITA No.107/RPR/2016 In view of the above facts ... associate concern. The associate concern had income on deemed dividend of Rs. 8,85,90,903/- during the FY 2010-11 as per section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Income escaped assessment Rs. 8,85,90,903/-." 22. On the issues raised u/s 263, assessee has made

International Management Technologies, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi

Accordingly set aside. The appeal however, is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1298/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1298/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. International Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Management Income Tax, Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(2), 1St Floor, Vijaya Building, New Delhi 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaaci8587M Assessee By Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

Properties Pvt. Ltd. has accumulated profit of Rs. 25,42,48,848/- as on 31.03.2015. In the case of the appellant provision of Section 2(22)(e) is clearly attracted. This fact has also not been disputed by appellant before AO. The only argument of the Ld. AR that ... loan taken was an interest bearing loan. This argument of the Ld. AR does not have any basis as the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) does not have any exception for interest bearing loans & advances. It is also evident from the assessment order and the submission of the appellant

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Sagar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 569/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the shareholders. Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (2013) has held that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company, who was lending money to it. 3.1. The assessee further submitted ... Nagpur) Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding fin terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend-HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in view of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 554/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the shareholders. Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (2013) has held that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company, who was lending money to it. 3.1. The assessee further submitted ... Nagpur) Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding fin terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend-HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in view of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour

ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/S Shirani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam (Mp)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 553/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the shareholders. Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jignesh P. Shah (2013) has held that the provision of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the assessee itself is the shareholder of the company, who was lending money to it. 3.1. The assessee further submitted ... Nagpur) Assessee-company engaged in money lending business-AO held that loan given to another company, which had common shareholding fin terms of section 2(22)(e)-AO therefore treated the amount as dividend-HELD-Assessee was not shareholder in that company therefore in view of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour

M/S. National Travel Service, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5291/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5291/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S National Travel Service, Vs Acit, 2, Jetair House, 13, Community Circle-24(1), Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafn2055Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.85,29,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Suffice it to mention that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of General

Shivam Residential Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Valsad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 396/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

seen that their ledger accounts with the assessee company have not been called for examining the applicability of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and consequent incidence of Dividend Distribution Tax. 4.The assessee company has borrowed considerable funds on interest as can be seen from Annexure

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

addition of Rs. 8,63,00,000/- relating to payment received on behalf of M/s Hero Honda Fincorp Ltd. Deemed as dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act since the payment (i.e. advances) were not given in the ordinary course of business? 10. Whether, on the facts ... years 2010-2011 to 2013- 14. Ground no. 9: Payment received on behalf of Hero Honda FinCorp. Ltd. (HFCL) deemed as dividend under section 2(22)(e). Facts: Hero FinCorp Limited (HFCL) is a related company which is engaged primarily in the business of financing of vehicles. In pursuance

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pci Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross objections of the assessee in CO No

ITA 5154/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)

convinced that the assessee had availed advance pursuant to business transaction, and, therefore, was outside the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), on proper appreciation of the facts, was convinced that the assessee company has furnished its corporate guarantee and allowed

Bineeta Singh, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3373/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Bineeta Singh, The Acit Circle 5(1), Flat No. 126, Aspen Greens, New Delhi Nirwana Country, Gurgaon, Vs. Haryana 122003 Pan Aqeps3259D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadwa, Advocate
Section 147Section 2(22)Section 250

assessee has challenged the addition, made by the A.O. and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), on following grounds and precise submissions:- i) section 2(22)e of the Income Tax 1961, does not apply to non gratuitous advance to substantial share holder for this proposition the learned counsel ... Archana Sharma vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad, it was also contended that the classes of shareholder specified therein would come within the purview of section 2(22)(e) but not in the cases were loan and advances has been given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by such shareholder

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shiv Priya, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5595/DEL/2016[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(iv)Section 2(24)(iv)

total income for the year under consideration. 6. In its reply, the assessee stated that facts do not invoke application of section 2(22)(iv) of the Act and further pointed out that similar additions were made in earlier years and the same were deleted ... Tribunal has decided the issue. 7. The reply of the assessee was dismissed by the Assessing Officer who, invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(iv) of the Act, estimated the benefit by taking rate of interest @ 6% p.a. and made the impugned addition. 8. The assessee carried the matter

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shiv Priya, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5594/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(iv)Section 2(24)(iv)

total income for the year under consideration. 6. In its reply, the assessee stated that facts do not invoke application of section 2(22)(iv) of the Act and further pointed out that similar additions were made in earlier years and the same were deleted ... Tribunal has decided the issue. 7. The reply of the assessee was dismissed by the Assessing Officer who, invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(iv) of the Act, estimated the benefit by taking rate of interest @ 6% p.a. and made the impugned addition. 8. The assessee carried the matter

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shiv Priya, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5593/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(iv)Section 2(24)(iv)

total income for the year under consideration. 6. In its reply, the assessee stated that facts do not invoke application of section 2(22)(iv) of the Act and further pointed out that similar additions were made in earlier years and the same were deleted ... Tribunal has decided the issue. 7. The reply of the assessee was dismissed by the Assessing Officer who, invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(iv) of the Act, estimated the benefit by taking rate of interest @ 6% p.a. and made the impugned addition. 8. The assessee carried the matter

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.S. AnanthanFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Crores has been considered by the assessee as dividend to the extent of accumulated profits possessed by CHIPL as per the provisions of Section 2(22)(d) of the Act and the same has been duly subjected to dividend distribution tax. The remaining sum of Rs.29.67 Crores has been considered

Yogesh Mehra, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhyogesh Mehra Vs. Pcit-2 201, Hare Krishna Room No. 1920, Building, Presidency Air India Building, Society, North South Mumbai - 400021 Road No. 8, Jvpd, Vile Parle, (West), Mumbai – 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapm6139N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishita MandalagwalaFor Respondent: Heman Kumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 263

accounts of WWIL in the books of Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP is to be considered as loans or advance for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) despite the fact that Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP has never become a debtor of WWII during the previous year relevant ... WWIL. The A.O observed that in the case of the assesse provision of Sec. 2(22)(e) are attracted. As per provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the act any loan or deposit given by a company to ashareholder who is hodling not less than 10% of the voting

Hindusthan Engineering & Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central -1, Kolkata

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

ITA 201/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 19 To 25/Kol/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015-16 M/S Hindusthan Engineering & Vs. Acit, Central, Range-1, Kolkata Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aaach 8505 Q) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (" यथ")

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 35

payment was made and secondly, there was no accumulated profits of the company, which is a prerequisite for invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e). Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that not only Assessing Officer has examined the issue, but, he has also passed the order ... books of account by converting the outstanding liability of the newly formed company as advance given to assessee will attract provisions of section 2(22)(e). In this context, he has relied upon a decision of the ITAT Chennai Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court