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 : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that an interest-bearing loan can still be taxed as deemed dividend where all statutory conditions under Secti...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of a registered or beneficial ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend provisions require evidence of withdrawal from a company in which the assessee is a shareh...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT ruled that once substantive addition under Section 2(22)(e) is sustained in the managing partners case, the cor...
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...
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).
CIT Vs Ms. Mustang Leather Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) A deemed dividend could only have been assessed in the hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of the borrowing concern in which such shareholder is a member or partner having substantial interest. Admittedly, in the […]
Firm being not a shareholder of the Pvt. Ltd. company which lent the money cannot be taxed by applying sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. So, the addition is deleted.
Since the transaction between assessee-company and other group concern were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing both types of entries i.e., receipts and payments and assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, therefore, the amount received from other group concern could not be brought in the purview of loans and advances so as to attract Section 2(22)(e).
ACIT Vs Seema Devi Bansal (ITAT Delhi) Trade and commercial transactions are not covered in the definition of ‘loans and advances’ on which section 2(22)(e) can be applied. When the company got back its funds on the same day, it could not fall into the definition of the deemed dividend. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT […]
Deeming Provision – deem things to be what they are not or changing some term to mean something more (or less) with the intent of conferring an advantage upon the taxman. Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 section 2(22)(e) is one such deeming provision that has been the focus of much litigation ever since its enactment.
Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee purchased the flat bearing flat no.602, in the building namely Ornate Galaxy, located at L.T. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai. No doubt, the assessee Dr. Natarajan is the CMD of hospital and is having 99% share of the assessee company. The flat is near to […]
Where assessee was not a member/shareholder of the concerned company, therefore, loan/advance received from such company was not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).
Hence it would be an appropriate analogy that the entire amount which is liable to be treated as deemed dividend has to be apportioned between both the shareholders in whose cases the conditions stipulated for attracting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied. Therefore as pleaded by the Ld.AR, it would be judicious to make addition in the hands of Shri V. Ramesh an amount of Rs.26,84,902/- and Shri S. Ramu – Rs.26,84,901/-. It is ordered accordingly.
It was held that Amount received by assessee from his father out of sum received by father for transfer of mining lease right to a Company in which assessee was shareholder cannot be treated as deemed dividend income of the assessee under section 2(22)(e) as sum was not received on behalf of Assessee and it was for a commercial transaction.
