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)

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 157/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd...................................…………………………....................Appellant 14, Bentinck Street, R.No. 8, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aabcc 0646 G] Dcit, Circle – 3(1) Kolkata....................……………………………………........................Respondent Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, F Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Sr. Dr (Jcit) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 12 Kolkata Dated 20.12.2018. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Ferro Alloys. In The Assessment Originally Completed U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 31.03.2015 The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 1,51,47,818/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,34,05,730/- . The Said Assessment Was Subsequently Set Aside By The Concerned Ld. Cit Vide His Order Dated 01.03.2017 Passed U/S 263 & In The Fresh Assessment Made By The Ao U/S 143(3) Read With Section 263 Vide An Order Dated 28.06.2017, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At Rs. 2,38,62,490/- After Making Addition Of Rs. 87,14,672/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Act.

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