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...
In the language of Section 2 (22) (e) the term beneficial owner of shares includes both registered as well as beneficial share holder. So provisions of this section could be applied where assessee can be treated as both mentioned above.
From the bare reading of provision of section 2 (22) (e) it can be easily understood that section can be invoked only if assessee to whom any payment was made by way of loan or advance must be beneficial owner of the shares.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DVO has estimated the cost of investment at Rs.3,58,39,100/- against the cost of investment declared by the assessee at Rs.3,47,12,678/-. Therefore, the difference is about 3.24% and for this minor difference, no addition is called for. Since the difference is very nominal, no addition is called for in this regard.
The assessee company is not the shareholder in M/s Precision Stock & Credit Pvt. Ltd. and received the amount from the said company in the course of ordinary business activities. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not applicable.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while relying on the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the Assessee’s own case which was having similar facts in which it was observed that the advance was treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) because it was converted as advance in the name of assessee merely through book entries and actually no money
Though, assessee has claimed that the amount received was not in the nature of loan/advance, but, towards purchase of land in the name of company, however, assessee has not produced even a single evidence to justify the aforesaid claim.
In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476, an advance was given to the said assessee by the sister concern, which held 50% of the share holding in the assessee concern for mordenisation project.
The Assessee was a significant shareholder in a company – The company sold building to shareholder on credit – Department treated it as ‘loan’ or ‘advance’ for invoking Section 2(22)(e). CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that since the unpaid purchase price has not been paid
The facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and the Assessing Officer noticed that the debit balance in the partners’ account was more than the credit balance. He, therefore, charged the interest on the net debit balance of partners at the rate of 12% and accordingly made the addition of 20,61,845/-
We have applied the above ratio to the facts of the instant case and find the two flats in question are not adjacent and they are not functionally one residential house with two adjacent units. Revenue has not brought any contrary decision to our notice. Considering the settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion, the order the CIT(A) does not call for any interference on this issue.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
