← 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)

Shyam Sunder Gupta, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 168/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 150Section 150(1)Section 153(3)(ii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251(2)Section 41(1)

erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.70,64,782/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted. 2. Because the CIT(A) has filed to appreciate ... commercial/business transactions carried on in the normal and ordinary course of business and do not fall within the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the addition made is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted. 3. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. M.B. Patil Construction Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2078/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

that the nature of transaction was in the form of "Loan" and the transaction was within the meaning of "Dividend" as defined in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing ... lender concern M/s Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. and also holds 97.5% shares in the assessee company, the transaction comes within the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, therefore, the amount of loan advanced Rs.60,45,43,526/- by M/s Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. to the assessee

M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2058/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

that the nature of transaction was in the form of "Loan" and the transaction was within the meaning of "Dividend" as defined in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing ... lender concern M/s Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. and also holds 97.5% shares in the assessee company, the transaction comes within the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, therefore, the amount of loan advanced Rs.60,45,43,526/- by M/s Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. to the assessee

Rama Devi Tummala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 778/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

PCIT erred in holding that the payments made by M/s. Rachana Television Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the appellant attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as deemed dividend. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the payments were made for legitimate business expenses ... been duly examined during the original assessment proceedings and no adverse inference was shown by the Ld. AO. It was further contended that, section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in the present case as the assessee holds only 4.48% of equity shares in the company, whereas

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 156/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

said company had received a loan that was liable to be brought to tax in his hands as “deemed dividend” under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. initiated proceedings in the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act. Notice

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Cirlce 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 155/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

said company had received a loan that was liable to be brought to tax in his hands as “deemed dividend” under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. initiated proceedings in the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act. Notice

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Cirlce 3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 154/HYD/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Us:

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

amount received by the assessee was liable to be brought to tax in his hands as a “deemed dividend” under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 149/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us:

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

amount received by the assessee was liable to be brought to tax in his hands as a “deemed dividend” under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 148/HYD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Us:

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

amount received by the assessee was liable to be brought to tax in his hands as a “deemed dividend” under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 147/HYD/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Us:

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

amount received by the assessee was liable to be brought to tax in his hands as a “deemed dividend” under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee

Cobol Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 5505/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

Sudesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7647/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Sudesh Gupta, Vs. Acit, B-15, Kalindi Colony, Circle-5(1), Opp. Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aahpg5645G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2025 Order

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

next note that the sole substantive issue between the parties herein is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action making section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition amounting to Rs. 1,29,53,126/-; in the course of assessment framed on 24.11.2016 and upheld in the lower appellate ... discussions, case law CIT Vs. Subhkam Monetary Services (P.) Ltd., (2015) 54 taxmann.com 226 (Bombay) holds that such intercorporate deposits do not attract section 2(22)(e) of the Act. All 2 | P a g e this is indeed coupled with the fact that the above former entity had also

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Reji Abraham, Chennai

In the result, CO of the assessee vide CO-53/Chny/2024 is dismissed

ITA 1762/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita-1762 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Reji Abraham, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) No.113, Janapriya Crest, Chennai. Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Reji Abraham, Assistant Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janapriya Crest, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) Pantheon Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue For Ay-2011-12 & Ay-2011-12 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 2(22)

through the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 to 6 are regarding the deletion of addition made by the Ld.AO by invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e ) of the act. It is the case of the Revenue that the order passed is not a speaking order and therefore ... based upon misunderstanding of facts by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The DR argued that it’s a clear case where provisions of section 2(22)(e ) of the act are attracted. In support of its contentions the Ld. DR has invited our attention to the circuitous transactions happening between

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mohammad Ashraf Qureshi, Agra

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 137/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

this amount which was given to the appellant did not tantamount to being a loan or advance, so as to be covered under section 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend as this was purely a commercial transaction. 7.8 In this regard in CIT vs. N.S. Narendra 129 taxmann.com 335 (Karnataka ... Karnataka High Court held that as per Section 2(22)(e), the phrase 'by way of the advance of loan' must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. If such

Shri Vinay Chaurasia, Chhatarpur vs. P. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 89/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON'BLE

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Coimbatore vs. Ms.Promethean Media Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2532/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2532/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Promethean Media Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. 53 Ganesh Nagar, Corporate Circle-1, Gn Mill Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 029. [Pan: Aahcp 6412H]

For Appellant: Shri R.K.V. Sundar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

regular transactions with M/s. Chromaprint India Pvt. Ltd. The Ld AR, therefore argued that the advance given is trade advance, not amenable to section 2(22)(2) as has been clarified in CBDT circular No 19 of 2017. 4.4 We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available ... accounts and agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the advances were in the nature of trade advances and therefore, section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs.44,62,938/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to take additional grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal and/or modify ... also a partner in M/s Vinarma Enterprises and Nav Bharat Nirman Co. Hence, consider that for those transactions provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable on the advances so given for an amount of Rs.2,72,26,500/-. On that observation Id. AO issued a show cause notice

M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

Vikas Gupta, Indore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 186/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Neha JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 15.11.2007. The revenue sought to make addition on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 19. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court after considering host of decisions propounded following propositions in the concluding paragraph

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Pvr Tourist Home, Cochin

ITA 428/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48Section 50Section 50(1)Section 50A

Urmila Ramesh [1998] 230 ITR 422 (SC) rendered in the context of provisions of section 41(2) read with provisions of section 2(22)(c) of the Act. 11 PVT Tourist Home 14. In the above terms, the appeal filed by Revenue stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open