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 : ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of revisionary order by PCIT u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act without giving proper and adequate op...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore rules that deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) can't be assessed by double deeming unless the assessee receives a direct b...
Income Tax : The department issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the petitioner had received loan from its 100...
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 : 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 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.
