Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Aalap Digital Music Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 95 ITR 22 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Business transaction-Special purpose vehicle-Not shareholder in lender company-Advance for business purpose-Not assessable as deemed dividend.

Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 54 (UO) / 140 taxmann.com 21 (SMC) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Dividend if at all taxable was taxable in the previous financial year and not in the relevant year-Addition was deleted.

Rainbow Promoters (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 95 ITR 232 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loans obtained from group companies-Not shareholder of payer group companies-Loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend.

Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 54 (UO) / 140 taxmann.com 21 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Amount received in earlier years-Addition was not justified.

Kankuben Karshanbhai Tejani (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2022) 98 ITR 702 //(2023) 198 ITD 304 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loan to shareholder-Loan made in ordinary course-Separate loan account and trade account of assessee-Loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend at the hands of assessee.

Dy. CIT v. Gurmeet Singh Anand (2022) 98 ITR 85 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loans and advances-Advance to business purposes-Deemed dividend provision is not applicable.

ACIT v. Krishna Coil Cutters Pvt. Ltd. (2022)98 ITR 650 (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loan to Shareholder-Nature of business of company to lend money-Advanced money to assessee shareholder for exigency and charged interest-Loan not assessable as deemed dividend.

Information Technology Park Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 99 ITR 633 (Bang.)(Trib)

S. 2(22)(d) : Dividend-Any distribution to its share holders on the reduction of its share capital-Deemed dividend-Redemption of Preference shares at premium-Not assessable as dividend-Addition was deleted. [S. 2(22)(e), R. 11UA(1)(c)(b), 11UA (1)(c)(c)]

Mohideen Sharif Inayathulla Sharif v. ITO (2022) 95 ITR 345 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Revenue records are ultimate proof of the land being agricultural land-Land situated beyond prescribed Limit-Cannot be considered as non-agricultural Land. [S. 45]

Ramachandra Kanu Mendadkar v CIT(A) (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org .

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Advocate – Seizure of cash – Cash withdrawal from Bank – Professional fees received cash – Name of the client from whom cash received was disclosed – The cash amount was disclosed in the books of account – Revenue cannot ask the asseessee to prove the source of the source -Addition was deleted [ S.44AB , 131(IA) ]