Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Deemed Dividend U/s 2(22)(e) Largely Deleted & Sec.54 Deduction Allowed

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 2160
Case Name
Atul Bansal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number
Premium Access
Date of Judgement/Order
Premium Access
Related Assessment Year
2013-14
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Atul Bansal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

This case involved cross-appeals against CIT(A) order where the AO treated huge advances of ₹71.08 Cr as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and disallowed deduction u/s 54. The Tribunal examined shareholding thresholds, accumulated profits, NBFC exception & factual matrix in detail.

Issue 1 — Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e):

The AO made addition alleging loans from group companies (ABW Infrastructure Ltd., VPS Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Par Excellence Leasing & Financial Services Ltd.). CIT(A) deleted most additions after verifying shareholding & nature of reserves. ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s findings observing:

  • Assessee held only 4.59% shareholding in ABW Infrastructure Ltd., hence basic 10% condition failed.
  • In several recipient entities, assessee did not hold 20% substantial interest.
  • Many lending entities had no accumulated profits; share premium cannot be treated as accumulated profits.
  • NBFC company advances fall outside 2(22)(e).

Therefore, major addition of ₹71.08 Cr was rightly deleted. Further, ITAT even deleted the small sustained addition of ₹20.66 lakh, holding provisions of 2(22)(e) not applicable at all

Issue 2 — Deduction u/s 54:

AO disallowed deduction alleging non-submission of evidence. CIT(A) allowed the claim after noting that details were filed through acknowledged DAK and investment of about ₹3 Cr was made in new residential property within prescribed time. ITAT confirmed that substantial payment & documentation satisfied sec.54 conditions, hence deduction allowed.

Issue 3 — Rule 46A:

Revenue argued additional evidence was wrongly admitted. Tribunal held that documents were already filed during assessment proceedings; hence Rule 46A violation not attracted.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

1. These cross appeals are filed by the assessee and Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘ld. CIT (A)’) dated 16.02.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

Want to Read the Complete Judgment?

You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.

Read on with Premium
Goes straight to payment. GST invoice included.

One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 7,653

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.