← 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)

Vinita Pawankumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1982/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Krupa Jimit Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

NFAC, Delhi, erred in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 25,58,638/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 2 (22) (e) of the I. T. Act, 1961, as deemed dividend in the hands of the Appellant wrongly invoking clause (b) of Explanation ... section 2 (22) (e) of the I. T. Act which is not applicable in the Appellant's case. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that all the loans received by the Appellant from Saraf Yarn Pvt. Ltd. were only when

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

that the transactions of loans are in the nature of deemed Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT dividend and hit by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. When the appellant was called upon to explain as to why the said transaction of loans cannot be treated ... deemed dividend, it was contended that the transactions are in the nature of trading transactions and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

that the transactions of loans are in the nature of deemed Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT dividend and hit by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. When the appellant was called upon to explain as to why the said transaction of loans cannot be treated ... deemed dividend, it was contended that the transactions are in the nature of trading transactions and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

that the transactions of loans are in the nature of deemed Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT dividend and hit by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. When the appellant was called upon to explain as to why the said transaction of loans cannot be treated ... deemed dividend, it was contended that the transactions are in the nature of trading transactions and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing

Shri Pachamuthu Ravi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Chennai

ITA 2346/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

order and correct in law. The Ld.DR submitted that in the first round the AO has not examined the applicability of section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee and that this issue came to the notice of the AO only through the communication sent ... Ld.CIT(A) repelling the legal issue raised by the assessee by holding that during the original assessment the issue of applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was not considered by the AO, hence there is no question of change of opinion on this issue. Further, according

Lupin Investments Private Limited (Successor to Zyma Laboratories Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4635/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R
Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 35ASection 56(2)(viia)Section 80G

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

Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7080/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhimgiri Realtors Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 11 (3), Flat No.818, 8Th Floor, New Delhi. Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Deli – 110 019. (Pan : Aabch6093E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 28.08.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Appeal Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & In Violation Of Rudimentary Principal Of Contemporary Jurisprudence.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Based on the above information, assessee was issued a separate notice asking to submit the supporting documentary evidences as to why provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked in the loan taken from sister concern. In response, assessee has submitted that assessee has taken short ... Smart Estates Pvt. Ltd. and it was submitted that the assessee is not the shareholder in those abovesaid group companies. Therefore, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable. However, Assessing Officer rejected 4 the same and observed that Aeren R Enterprises

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hydreabad

ITA 472/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A" BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

Sciences Pvt. Ltd., in excess of 150% of sales amounting to Rs.121,11,83,360/- as loans and advances for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has considered excess payment by M/s. Mythri Labs Pvt. Ltd., to M/s. MSN Life Sciences ... purchases or sales as trade advances and the remaining amount of advance has been treated as loans or advances within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts simply held that, payments in excess of 200% of sales should

Binoy John, Trivandrum vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Cochin, Cochin/Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on grounds of delay and latches

ITA 855/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Binoy John .......... Appellant Tc 2/391, Puthnveetil, Ulloor, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695011 [Pan: Acppj3562K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central, Cochin Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Cochin (Pr. Cit) Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Doctor Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also A Director In The Company Credence Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Acit

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 5

Director made an advance of Rs. 3.42 crores to the appellant which amounts to deemed dividend within the meaning of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice

Ponnamparambath Ashique, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1) Tps, Kozhikode

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

ITA 606/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ponnamparambath Ashique .......... Appellant Koyenco House, West Hill, Kozhikode 673005 [Pan: Acmpa5569N] Vs. Acit, Circle- 1(1) & Tps, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19.06.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also Managing Director Og M/S. Platino Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Return Of Income For Ay 2010-11 Was Filed On 17.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 25,18,810/-. There Was No Scrutiny Assessment. Subsequently The Ao Received Information That The Appellant Is Holding Shares Of 25%

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Autos (P) Ltd., in which the appellant had 25% shareholdings. According to the AO, the loans so advanced fall within the definition of section 2(22)(e) the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Accordingly formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax and issued a notice ... additional evidences. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of the AO to decide afresh the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of the loans/advances received by the appellant from the said two companies. 4 Ponnamparambath Ashique 7. In the result

Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), Delhi

ITA 1808/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years ... Raas") for assessment year 2004-05, without independently examining the nature of the transaction and also the applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment completed under section 147/144

Thanjavur Commerce Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 291/NAG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 154Section 2(22)(e)

quantum appeal being ITA no.182/Nag./2016, has already deleted the addition of ` 31,92,098, as made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide assessment order dated 28/02/2013, succeeded by rectification order dated 17/05/2013, passed under section ... instant case, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, has affirmed the addition of ` 9,72,899, under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on account of deemed dividend towards loan received from Shri Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. On the contrary, the learned A.R. has submitted that

Thanjavur Commerce Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 290/NAG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 154Section 2(22)(e)

quantum appeal being ITA no.182/Nag./2016, has already deleted the addition of ` 31,92,098, as made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide assessment order dated 28/02/2013, succeeded by rectification order dated 17/05/2013, passed under section ... instant case, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, has affirmed the addition of ` 9,72,899, under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on account of deemed dividend towards loan received from Shri Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. On the contrary, the learned A.R. has submitted that

Ravinder Rao Takkallapelly, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Chiranjeevi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.477/Hyd/2025 2 “ 1. Against Incorrect Addition under Section 2(22)(e): The learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in treating the amount of Rs.42,34,956 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) without correctly appreciating the factual

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1349/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act as the director of the assessee company had substantial interest in the companies from which it has taken loans ... Directors are holding any substantial interest in those companies from whom assessee has received unsecured loans and to explain whether provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act should be applied or not. However, in written submissions, vide letter dated 14.12.2018, it was submitted that provisions of section 2

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1336/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act as the director of the assessee company had substantial interest in the companies from which it has taken loans ... Directors are holding any substantial interest in those companies from whom assessee has received unsecured loans and to explain whether provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act should be applied or not. However, in written submissions, vide letter dated 14.12.2018, it was submitted that provisions of section 2