This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Inter-corporate deposit cannot be termed as loan for section 2(22)(e)
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- KIIC Investment Company Vs DCIT (IT) (ITAT Mumbai)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2009-10 & 2010-11
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Mumbai
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
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 deemi...
