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 : The meaning of the expression ‘substantial part of business’ for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) Introduction Section ...
Income Tax : Read about the ITAT Chennai case between DCIT and Gemini Traze RFID Pvt. Ltd. regarding deemed dividend status under Section 2(22)...
Income Tax : In DCIT Vs Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Kolkata rules that Section 2(22) of Income Tax Act doesn't apply to non-beneficiary shar...
Income Tax : Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata held that deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)...
Income Tax : In ACIT Vs Adiish Jain, ITAT Delhi ruled on deemed dividend under IT Act, deleting the addition. Detailed analysis of the case & j...
Income Tax : Legal fiction created u/s. 2 (22)(e) enlarges definition of dividend only and legal fiction is not to be extended further for broa...
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...
Kolkata ITAT held In the case of Sri Manoj Murarka vs. ACIT that the AO had travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested on him by the order of the CIT u/s 263 by treating the amounts overdrawn by the son and daughter of the assessee thereby bringing the same to tax as deemed dividend.
ITAT Kolkata held in case of ITO v Smt. Gayatri Chakroborty that where the transactions are mutual in nature or there is benefit or no benefit to each other, then these kind of transactions will not come under the purview of section 2(22)(e).
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mahesh Chandra Mantri that It is apparent from the language of the Section 2(22) (e) that before any payment can take the character of dividend within the meaning of the aforesaid provision it has to be shown that there were accumulated profits lying
In the case of Shri Kaushik B. Patel Vs. D.C.I.T it was held by ITAT Ahmedabad that routine business transactions/salary payments do not fall under the purview of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case the assessee’s books nowhere treat the sums received as loan and advances to have been received from the said Company.
ITAT Mumbai has In the case of CIT Vs. Sh. Chandrakant V. Gosalia held that Loan given by Company to its substantial shareholder will attracts provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act,1961 if the same were not lent in ordinary course of business and mere payment of loan amount would not escape assesse from provision of Section 2 (22)(e).
ITAT Kolkata has held in the case ITO Vs. Piyush Jalan that where lending of money is substantial part of the business of the concerned company and any advance or loan is made by it to a shareholder in the ordinary course of its business
In terms of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dividend” includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after the 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan:
Friends, as you all are aware that if any loan or advance is given by any closely held company (Private Company) to: A shareholder who is having equal to or more than 10% of share capital in that company or; Any concern (ex. XYZ Pvt. Ltd.) in which such shareholder is having shareholding of equal […]
In the case of Smt. Uppala Rajani Vs. DCIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT have held that the amount advanced for business transaction between parties regarding supply of material and labour, are not such to fall within the definition of ‘deemed dividend’ under S.2(22)(e).
The assessee submitted that he was managing director of SISICOL, which had many deposit schemes and 290 units or branches to aid its operations. He was also a partner of the firm, which entered into an understanding with SISICOL
