Income Tax : Courts have held that reopening an assessment on identical facts under a different deeming provision is invalid. The key takeaway ...
Income Tax : Learn about deemed dividends under Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, its implications, and key judicial precedents relate...
Income Tax : Gain insights on Deemed Dividends under the Income Tax Act: Understand taxability, TDS applicability, and key exemptions for optim...
CA, CS, CMA : Explore intricacies of deemed dividends in India. Understand definitions, applicable transactions, and tax implications. Uncover i...
Income Tax : The dividend income received by non-resident individuals, including Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and Non-Resident Indian cit...
Income Tax : The issue was addition of deemed dividend under search assessment. The tribunal held that without incriminating material, addition...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
Income Tax : The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books do...
Income Tax : The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot apply where the assessee held less than 10% shareholding in the lending company. As s...
Income Tax : Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that dividend includes any payment by a company, not being...
The issue was addition of deemed dividend under search assessment. The tribunal held that without incriminating material, additions in completed assessments are unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling clarifies that such action exceeds jurisdiction under Section 251 and must be addressed through other provisions.
The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed dividend, if attracted, must be taxed in the hands of the substantial shareholder alone.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot apply where the assessee held less than 10% shareholding in the lending company. As statutory thresholds were not met, the deemed dividend addition was largely deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority exceeded jurisdiction by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the deemed dividend addition on merits as raised in appeal.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that repayment of a shareholder’s own deposit, even if used for political donation, is not deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) as no company funds were advanced.
Courts have held that reopening an assessment on identical facts under a different deeming provision is invalid. The key takeaway is that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal considered whether disallowance under section 14A was justified merely because exempt income was earned. It ruled that without corresponding investments in the assessee’s books, section 14A cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal reiterated that tax authorities cannot impose notional income merely because interest could have been charged. Commercial decisions on interest-free advances lie with the assessee, not the assessing officer.
