“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)

Sahara India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1977/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

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

Reddy Housing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 635/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Reddy Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, #133/1 The Residency, 2Nd Floor Ward - 2, Residency Road, Hassan. H No.36B, Bommegowda Building, Paduvalu, Hippe Holenarasipur, Hassan– 573 211, Karnataka. Pan : Bsops 2078 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Narendra Sharma Adv Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Narendra Sharma AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

financial statements, it was seen that company is having 50% of the share holidng in the assessee company. Accordingly AO disallowed under section 2(22)(e) of the Act as deemed dividend and added back into the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal

Bsst India Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4448/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4448/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Bsst India Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income Tax D-586, Govind Puram, Vs. (Appeals), Ghaziabad. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Pan No.Aafcb8294F (Nfac), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

under: - “The above action of Ld. AO is challenged on the ground that definition of dividend enlarged by the deeming provision of section 2(22)(e) is applicable based on the concept that dividend is always given to shareholder and not to any other entity even including entity not being ... stated that since Shri Praveen Tyagi was a beneficial shareholder in both the Lender Company and the assessee company hence the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were attracted. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records. A plain reading

Jamaluddin S/O Shri Chunir Ahmed, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3551/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

ITAT was justified in law in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of deemed dividend by not appreciating that Section 2(22)(e) of the Act excludes the transaction of lending money in only two circumstances i.e., firstly if the company is in the business of money ... Whether, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law by not appreciating that the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act creates a legal fiction whereby any payment, by any company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder

Jamaluddin, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3550/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Mohan Export (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-17(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1716/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

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

erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5,57,96,604/- under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) and further enhancing the 2 Mohan Export (India) Pvt. Ltd. addition by Rs.9,85,07,883/- to Rs.15,43,04,487/-. That the addition being contrary ... provisions of law be deleted. ii) That it may be held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have been wrongly applied as the assessee does not hold 10% shares or more in the company giving the loan and the addition of Rs.15,43,04,487/- being unwarranted

Afsana Begum, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 113/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56

treated the loan advance of ₹2,25,28,000/- during the F.Y. 2019-20 as deemed dividend in view of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and brought to tax u/s 56 of the Act. Since the assessee had not furnished any reply to the show ... appellant, behind receiving an advance from the company, courts have consistently upheld the AO’s addition of such amounts as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, in the absence of conclusive documentary evidence as required under the mandate of the law and as per detailed discussion, the action

Addpol Chemspecialities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodra, Vadodra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1641/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

addition of Rs. 16,00,000 on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the act without appreciating that provision of section 2(22)(e) is applicable only in hands of a shareholder being person/ or to any concern in which such shareholder is having substantial interest ... shareholdings as on 31.03.2012 in Addpol Chem Specialties Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer observed that as per provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act payment by way of loan / advance to the extent of accumulated profits by a closely held company is to be treated

Snehal Ravjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1418/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

dividend and also objected to the reopening of assessment. The assessing officer considered the submission however made addition of Rs.56,09,015/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal and submitted that the issue ... covered by CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12-06-2017 wherein it is clarified Section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable in trade advances and relied upon various High Court judgments. Ld. CIT(A) held that the I.T.A No. 1418/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

Mr Mukund Vallabhdas Thakker, Mumbai vs. Dycit. CC 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5904/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09 Mr. Mukund Vallabhdas Deputy Commissioner Of Thakker, Income Tax, Ground Floor, Vs. Central Circle-4(2)(1), Persian Apartments, Aayakar Bhavan, 434, Vp Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Aaapt3952A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually Appeared) For Revenue : Shri Anurag Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Delhi, Dated 27-08-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs. 9,73,306/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi

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

name of the assessee amounts to advancing of loan by the company to the assessee and which triggers the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and hence, the same was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 3. The assessee thereafter carried the matter ... business and merely because motor-car is registered in the name of the assessee, it cannot be held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act get triggered. 3 4. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered, but not found acceptable to the Ld.CIT

Sunil Madhyani, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 586/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.586/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Madhyani Ward No.24, Behind Hotel Malwa Durg (C.G.)- 491 001 Pan: Apipm9839G

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

company to obtain loans exceeding Rs.25 crores; b) the transaction conferred substantial benefit to the company and therefore falls outside the ambit of section 2(22)(e). c) the advance was in the nature of land advance pursuant to an agreement and duly recorded in the books of the company ... explanation or documentary evidence regarding the advance of Rs.1,12,09,000/- received from the company or to demonstrate why the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the A.O. held that the amount of 4 Sunil Madhyani Vs. DCIT, Cirle-1(1), Bhilai

Universal Auto Gears LLP, Kolar vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1370/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

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

during the year. The AO had treated the loan received from the said Universal Carburizing Works Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act since the company as well as the assessee are having common shareholders. Even though the assessee explained that the loan ... substantial stake in the assessee, in order to protect the assessee’s interest, the said loan was offered. The AO relied on section 2(22)(e)(ii) of the Act and concluded that the loan amount of Rs. 3,73,28,315/- was liable to be taxed u/s. 2(22

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2274/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 131Section 132

incriminating material which related / pertained to the assessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a short question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the shareholder of a closely held company, which had advanced sums to concerns in which the assessee