Inter-corporate deposit cannot be termed as loan for section 2(22)(e)

KIIC Investment Company Vs DCIT (IT) (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Amount advanced by Portescap to Videojet in which assessee was a common shareholder holding substantial shareholding could not be termed as loan falling within the purview of sec. 2(22)(e) as the same was shown in the balance-sheet of Portescap as well as Videojet as inter-corporate deposit (ICD). Held: Assessee-company was a common shareholder holding substantial shareholding both in Portescap as well as Videojet. AO was of a belief that the amount of Rs.13 crores given by Portescap to Videojet attracted the deeming provision of S...