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)

ITO WD 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Illusion Dental Laboratory P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5619/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5619/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2)(1), Illusion Dental Laboratory Private Room No. 212, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 402/403, Akruti Arcade, J. P. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabci 3029 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Y. S. Jadhav अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dilip T. Warah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 28.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of Cit(A)-17, Mumbai In Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It/113/13-14 Dated 04.6.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Ito U/S. 143 R/W. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 26.03.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Registry Has Noted That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 33 Days, But Subsequently The Revenue Filed A Letter Dated 17.9.2014

For Appellant: Shri Dilip T. Warah
Section 143Section 2(22)(e)

Taurian Engineering P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3129/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 3129/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Taurian Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Jt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 302-A, Poonam Chamberes, (Osd)-4(3), फनधभ/ 3Rd Floor, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400018 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcm8782H (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri J P Bairagra प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri R A Dhyani सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 08.03.2016 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4.2.2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Upholding Of The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,09,75,000/- Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)