Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(22)(e) is CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (319 ITR 204), cited in 378 of the 1,757 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e)

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.

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.

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.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT
338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT
72 ITR 612 · 1969 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

The reasonableness of an expenditure for business purposes must be assessed from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's, and the primary motive to earn income directly is not a prerequisite for its admissibility as a deduction.

H T Media Ltd. v. PCIT
399 ITR 576 · 2017 · High Court
132
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must first record satisfaction that the assessee’s claim regarding expenditure incurred for earning exempt income is incorrect or unreasonable before applying the provisions of Rule 8D to determine such disallowance under Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.
318 ITR 476 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances or amounts advanced for bona fide business transactions, driven by commercial expediency, do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raj Kumar
318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
324 ITR 263 · 2010 · High Court
111
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of the beneficial shareholder who receives the benefit of the loan or advance, and not in the hands of the company receiving the loan.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah
290 ITR 433 · 2007 · Supreme Court
99
citing judgments

For Section 2(22)(e) to apply, a payment by a company must be in the nature of a loan or advance, and the company must have accumulated profits. Such payments to a concern in which a shareholder, holding more than 10% voting power, has a substantial interest are deemed dividends if the shareholder ultimately benefits, even if routed through different modes or concerns.

Judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

Mustasq Ahmad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1351/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-2014. Mustaq Ahmad, The Income Tax Officer, No.160, Mustafa Centre, Vs. International Taxation, Usman Road, Ward 1(1) T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. Pan: Adepa 1181B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, C.A, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai-16 [‘Cit(A)’ Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Five (5) Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Counsel For The Assessee Has Vehemently Pressed A Ground No.2 That There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ In Short). G.No.2 Is As Under: ‘’2. At The Outset, The Ao Has No Jurisdiction To Reopen The Assessment, As All The Material Facts Were With The Ao Even At The Time Of Completing The Original Assessment & There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice. The Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.148 Of The Act Is Ab Initio Void & On This Ground Alone The Reassessment Deserves To Be Cancelled’’.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Athi Kalathu Alangara Maligai, Pudukkottai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1282/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1265 & 1282/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Athi Kalathu Alangara Maligai, Income Tax, 867/2, 3, 4, North Main Street, Central Circle-1, Pudukkottai 622 001. Trichy. [Pan:Abbfa0036A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Common Order Dated 18.09.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The 2. Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Athi Kalathu Alangara Maligai, Pudukkottai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1265/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1265 & 1282/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Athi Kalathu Alangara Maligai, Income Tax, 867/2, 3, 4, North Main Street, Central Circle-1, Pudukkottai 622 001. Trichy. [Pan:Abbfa0036A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Common Order Dated 18.09.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The 2. Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate

Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1824/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd….…………………………………………….…..……Appellant 20, B. T. Road, Kolkata-700002. [Pan: Aadcp7251J] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata..............….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return On 24.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.83,95,690/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Were Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Was Completed On 29.12.2011 With A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.93,95,690/-. Later On, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received A Loan Of Rs.2,11,39,885/- From M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. During The Relevant Financial Year. Both The Assessee & M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. Has Common Shareholders Namely Shri Haranjit Singh & Mr. Subash Bera Holding More Than 10% Of The Share Capital In Both Companies. The Assessing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 263