“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)

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 2266/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

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

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

ITA 2265/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

Silgate Solutions Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of international call centre. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14 on 24.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs.92,36,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that there was change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee wherein the ass

For Appellant: Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR

Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

sec.46A, consequent to the insertion of sec. 77A in the Companies Act, which allows a company to purchase its own shares. Amendment in Section 2(22) provides that the dividend does not include any payment made by a company on purchase of its own shares in accordance with provisions

Akash Kapoor, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 80T

course of search in question. He further quotes section 292C of the Act that such electronic evidence; include a “document” as defined in section 2(22)AA of the Act; indeed, carries presumption of correctness wherein the onus to 4 | P a g e rebut the same lies

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

weeks, entered into with its subsidiaries Regal Vacation Concepts Private Limited and Royal International Holiday Club (India) Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing commission expenses amounting to Rs.3.43 ... assessee is utilising the advances / loan in the form of purchase of time share weeks. Such transaction is hit by provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. On the basis of such adverse observation, the AO issued show cause notice dated 16/12/2018. Details of show cause notice

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

Ramsamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani, Pallipalayam vs. Itd, Ward 2, Tiruchengode

ITA 2438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2438/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late. Ramasamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani, (Represented By Legal Heir Shri. P.D.Balachandhran) 79, R.P.Street, Sankari Bye-Pass Road, R.P.Street,\Pallipalayam – 638 006. [Pan:Acqpd-3208-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito, Vs. Ward -2, Tiruchengode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 16.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Herein After “Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 16.07.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

circumstances of the case the AO is not justified in assessing a sum of Rs.1,79,52,270/- by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act in assessing the above amount as deemed dividend which has been upheld by the First appellate authority ... 2438/Chny/2024 basis, the AO concluded that since the assessee's shareholding and voting rights in the respective companies exceeded 10%, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, were attracted. The AO further held that the assessee, being both a significant shareholder and a beneficiary of the loans

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 712/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment and since there was no incriminating material or facts/circumstances justifying additions made under section 2(22)(e), Tribunal was justified in deleting addition. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the grounds urged in support of the Revenue ... assessment can be made. In the present case, the Revenue does not urge that it discovered any new material justifying the addition under section 2(22)(e). Rather, there was no material to connect the additions made under that head. Clearly, there was no incriminating material or facts and circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

ITA 711/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 480/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 127Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment and since there was no incriminating material or facts/circumstances justifying additions made under section 2(22)(e), Tribunal was justified 46 ITA Nos.480/JP/2025 DCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private Ltd. in deleting addition. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering ... assessment can be made. In the present case, the Revenue does not urge that it discovered any new material justifying the addition under section 2(22)(e). Rather, there was no material to connect the additions made under that head. Clearly, there was no incriminating material or facts and circumstances

DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Rakesh S Kathotia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the addition under section 2(22)(e) is based on material available on record, including financial transactions and shareholding patterns, which are relevant and sufficient for determining total income under section 153A, irrespective ... seized during search. 2 Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,29,50,407/- made under section 2(22)(e) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, ignoring the clear findings regarding the pre- arranged, colourable transaction structure involving pass through entities, ultimately

ITO, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Jujhar Construction & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Ito, Vs M/S Jujhar Construction & Ward 6(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd.,Near Pull Jawaddi, Ludhiana. Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcj1127H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

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

2 that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting protective addition of Rs.12,24,72,654/- added by the AO with the aid of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income ... very transfer of amount from the group companies for the A.Y.2013-14 4 business purpose which has not resulted into any violation' of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.In the present case one of the group company has transferred the funds to a Company which has further

Kabir Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD-II) Cr 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5342/MUM/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.5342/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Kabirmulchandani V/S. Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, बनाम C/O R.C Kapoor & Co, Mumbai Chartered Accountants Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, Mumbai D-36, South Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi 110049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm1224B Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/"ितवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

amount of Rs. 1,20,03,200/- was added to the assessee’s income as deemed dividend after invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6.1. After considering the assessee’s submissions Ld. CIT(A) finally upheld the addition to the extent

Mateshwari Bus Operation Private Limited, Ahemdabad vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2, Ahemdabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmateshwari Bus Operations Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Tds, Ward-2, U-7, Swastik House, Near Old Ahmedabad. High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. [Pan :Ahmm13678 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amit Mundhra, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Bona Fide Inter- Corporate Loan Of Rs.20,00,000/- Advanced By The Assessee To M/S Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. As "Deemed Dividend" Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & In Holding The Assessee To Be An Assessee In Default Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) For Not Deducting Tax At Source Under Section 194 Of The Act. The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Transaction Was A Commercial Loan, Fully Disclosed & Subsequently Repaid By The Recipient, The Assessee Was Not The Beneficial Owner Of Shares In The Recipient Company, No Benefit Accrued To Any Shareholder Individually & The Conditions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Satisfied Either In Letter Or In Spirit. The Impugned Order Is Therefore Bad In Law, Based On Presumptions & Liable To Be Quashed In Its Entirety.” Maheshwari Bus Operation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year 2015-16 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mundhra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)Section 250

fide inter- corporate loan of Rs.20,00,000/- advanced by the assessee to M/s Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. as "deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in holding the assessee to be an assessee in default under section 201(1)/201 ... assessee was not the beneficial owner of shares in the recipient company, no benefit accrued to any shareholder individually and the conditions of section 2(22)(e) were not satisfied either in letter or in spirit. The impugned order is therefore bad in law, based on presumptions, and liable

International Creations Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

aforementioned amount was capital contribution of both the companies and thus out of the purview of deemed dividend as envisaged in provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is also stated by the Ld. AR that any payment made for commercial purpose is not covered as deemed ... Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. International Creations Pvt. Ltd. was not loans and advance and therefore, not covered as deemed dividend as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the addition ITA No.742/Srt/2024 A.Y 15-16 International Creations Pvt. Ltd. made in the case of Shri Ashok Kumar

Madison Teamworks Film Promotions and Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3533/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner Of Promotions & Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, 349 Business Point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan : Aaecm1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

assessment proceedings that the assessee-company‟s transactions with its related concerns are covered by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act and partly confirmed the addition made on account ... assessment proceedings that the assessee-company‟s transactions with its related concerns are covered by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is factually incorrect. At the same time, it was submitted that as far as quantum proceedings are concerned, the same has attained finality

Arihant Fertiliser and Chemicals India Limited, Indore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Indore

ITA 711/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

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

without considering the fact that the assessee was not a shareholder of M/s Arihant Bio-Chem Ltd. and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) did not have any application. 6. Apropos to this ground, the relevant facts are very limited and do not require any elaboration. During ... Chemicals India Ltd. ITA No.711And/2024 Assessment year 2015-16 7. Ld. AR for assessee made a straight forward contention that the provision of section 2(22)(e) had already been analysed in a series of decision by various appellate forums and it is now clear that the taxability would

Kesar Buildcon Private Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

ITA 790/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 269S

Assessing Officer failed to verify whether the loan received was out of accumulated profits of the lending company, and whether the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, relating to deemed dividend, were attracted. It was noted that the loan amount of Rs. 1.35 crore remained unexplained ... examined for the purpose of section 2(22)(e), and that even the peak amount of Rs. 20,16,470 /- during the year was not subjected to proper verification. 2.6 The assessee, in response to the show cause notice issued by the PCIT, submitted that it was not a shareholder