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 : Understand the tax implications of bonus shares in deemed dividends. Explore the case of PCIT vs. Dr. Ranjan Pai and its impact on...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that trade advances, in the nature of commercial transactions, cannot be characterized as ‘loans or advanceâ...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court held that court cannot interfere with order of settlement commission if challenge is merely that Settlement Comm...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that entire assessments has been restored to the file of CIT(A) for de novo consideration since assessee was f...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that validity of reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has to be determined based on original...
Income Tax : Telangana High Court held that accumulated profits under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act are to be computed taking into acc...
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 received by assessee form a closely held company in the guise of an agreement having no existence in the eyes of law, was to be assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in assessee’s hands on account of his substantial shareholding.
The fact that the assessee had given his personal property as collateral security for enabling M/s. Palsons Drugs Pvt. Ltd to obtain loan and other credit facilities is not in dispute. Under the circumstances the proposition of law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs CIT’ (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case.
In Circular No. 19/2017, paragraph 3, the CBDT has also held that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word advance in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
CIT Vs. Madhur Housing And Development Co (Supreme Court) The impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 has relied upon a judgment of the same date by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in ITA No. 462 of 2009 in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd . Having perused the judgment […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, recently ruled that advances given to the directors of a Company for purchase of land cannot be treated as deemed dividend Under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the land is transferred to the company within time.
In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the amounts received by assessee is nothing but loan / advance from NIPL and assessee is camouflaging the same as a commercial transaction relating to sale of property in order to get over the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.
Capital reduction is a commonly adopted tool by companies for re-engineering their capital structure. The need for reducing share capital may arise owing to a number of reasons, such as returning excess funds to the shareholders, adjustment of accumulated losses, minority squeeze out, improving EPS, producing a more efficient capital structure, etc. In this article we have analysed the importance to understand the key tax aspects related to capital reduction.
Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that dividend includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares
In DCIT v. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co.Ltd, the ITAT Kolkata held that shareholding by Subsidiary Company is irrelevant while considering ‘deemed dividend’ liability of Holding Company under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Though, advance received by assessee company may have been for the benefit of the aforementioned registered shareholders, it could only be assessed in the hands of those registered shareholders and not in the hands of the assseeee-company.
