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

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.