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 Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 187/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.187/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12) M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), 804, Subham Building,8Th Floor Aayakar Bhawan, 1, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700017 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 0993 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Amlan Tripathy सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-3, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 14.01.2016. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Dated 28/09/2011 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,13,73,564/-. The Assessee Has Income From Stock Broking/Trading & Investment. Assessment U/S 143(3) Was Completed On Dated 18.03.2014 But Later On The Commissioner Of Income Tax Exercised Has Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Found That The Assessee Company Had Received An Amount Of Rs.5,75,00,0000/- As Loan From Jet Age Finance Pvt.Ltd., A Closely Held Company. Sri Harshavardhan Himatsingka Was Holding

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Amlan Tripathy
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 3

ITO 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Atlas Equifin P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6029/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No. 6029/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito -5(1)(1) M/S. Atlas Equifin Pvt.Ltd. Room No.570, 5Th Floor, 11, New Surya Kiran Chs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. A.K. Marg, B/H. Tejpal Hall, Mumbai-400 020. Gowalia Tank,Mumbai-400 036. Pan: Aacca 7723 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri Rajeev Wagle सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:17.03.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 02/07/2012 Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Sale Of Film Rights & Investment Activities, Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2009, Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 26/12/2011, U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs.4.52 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev WagleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 139Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 254(1)Section 391