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...
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.
