“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)

Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Central Circle, Ghaziabad.

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, Jamshedpur vs. Mahendra Gope, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 94/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Shri V. Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT

Dr. H M Venkatappa, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 2176/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri E Balasubramanian C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT and Shri Subramanian S

Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

withdrawn by Dr. Venkatappa from KDSPL for personal use and therefore, the same should be considered as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, since Dr. Venkatappa is a substantial shareholder in M/s KDSPL. Thus, the AO issued show cause notice proposing to make an addition ... held that the cash, though unaccounted, was withdrawn from the company for personal use and hence, qualifies as a deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The fact that these transactions were not recorded in the company’s books further supports this conclusion. Consequently, the AO assessed

Gaurav Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-22(3), New Delhi

ITA 3475/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3473/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3474/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 3475/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gaurav Bajaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1786, 1St Floor, Bajaj House, Ward-22(3), Bhagirath Palace, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeopb3197D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 3473, 3474 & 3475/Del/2019, For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi’S As Many Orders Dated 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019 & 18.03.2019 In Case Nos. 10589, 10590 & 10591, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

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

course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly invoked section 148/147 reopening mechanism against the assessee in order to assess section 2(22)(e) deemed dividends amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, in his hands, in the course of assessment framed on 08.12.2016 and partly upheld ... That being the case, I hereby reject the department’s stand treating the same as non-genuine transactions to delete the impugned section 2(22)(e) deemed addition in light of CIT Vs. Creative Dying and Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.). Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s instant

Gaurav Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-22(3), New Delhi

ITA 3474/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

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

Gaurav Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-22(3), New Delhi

ITA 3473/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

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

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

purpose of Income Tax Act, but for the purpose of Income Tax Act, each transfer is a taxable event. Therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act, “deemed dividend" is applicable to the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has compensated these companies ... shares. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has given the direction to the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee, in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act and Section 115QA in respect of capital reduction of Rs.2.71 crores. The learned Counsel submitted that such enhancement order passed

Yashvardhan Gokuldas Binani, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (3) (5), Mumbai

ITA 4133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the nature of the transactions and confirming the addition made by the AO under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The Learned NFAC failed in appreciating that considering the nature of transactions, section 2(22 ... aforesaid companies (a) 16.34% in Decon Mercantile and (b) 21.47% in Francis Klein & Co. Therefore, the provisions related to deemed dividend contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were attracted. Thus, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income in the nature of deemed dividend had escaped

Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi

The appeals is allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-30, Anand Niketan, Circle-12(2), Basement, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacs2041N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca; Ms Pallavi Sharma, Ca & Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.208/18-19/Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 18.03.2016, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

upheld the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made by the Ld. AO by invoking section 2(22)(e) of the Act and treating the amounts received by the Appellant from one Sara Industrial Estate Ltd as deemed dividend. In this regard, we find that Ld. AO and ld.CIT ... Even though specifically confronted, the assessee has not come forward as to how in the specific facts of the case the provisions of section 2(22) (e) were not applicable. It is noticed from the share holding pattern of the assessee company filed vide letter dated 07,03.2016 that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2849/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. Vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. : 13.03.2025 : 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs.5,97,36,000/- when in section 2(22)(e), the key condition is that a loan or advance is given to a shareholder, a director, or their relative by the company & that ... advance must hold at least 10% of the voting power in the company & that in the present case all the parameters that trigger section 2(22)(e) of the Act are existent. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the said advances were made from

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2848/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Kishore Kumar Jain, Income Tax, Vs. 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Central Circle -2 (2), Vepery, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2847/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Kishore Kumar Jain, Vs.62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. 13.03.2025 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

ACIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1942/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the presence of seized material substantiating the nature of deemed dividend transactions and concluding that the addition

ACIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1940/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

Ayaj S. Dhumal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ajay S. Dhumal, Ito-26(2)(4), 229/230, Arun Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacpd 7035 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi

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

such, the amount received was liable to As such, the amount received was liable to be treated as deemed dividend deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assesse the hands of the assessee ... liable to be taxed as d that the said loan was liable to be taxed as deemed dividend under eemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in the hands of Mr. Dhumal section 2(22)(e) in the hands of Mr. Dhumal. The assessee contested The assessee contested this conclusion

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 19/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

M/S Thanjavur Commerece Pvt; Ltd., Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 2(22)(e)

confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer treating the loan repayment received from M/s. Mansa Agro Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the following grounds:– 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts ... circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ` 13,92,098, made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2 Thanjavur Commerce Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.182/Nag./2016 2. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

report in assessee's case and also in case of Shree Agarwal that the transaction is not covered by the exception provided in section 2 (22) (e) (ii) of the IT Act. No adverse inference has been drawn by the AO on the details submitted by the assessee ... directed to be deleted as assessee is engaged in the business of finance & lending which is covered under exception provided in section 2(22)(e) (ii) of the Act. Thus, the said addition is hereby directed to be deleted by upholding the impugned order passed by the learned

ACIT, Central Cirlce-1, Nashik vs. Avinash Knatilal Jain, Jalgaon

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

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

entered in these accounts were mutual. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act are applicable in this case and therefore addition of Rs.3,77,81,102/- was required to be made ... company styled as Maganlal Chhaganlal (P.) Ltd. and 'is a person who has substantial interest in the company' for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He also carries on a proprietary business in the name and style of Rainbow Paints. The company maintains