Income Tax : Courts have held that reopening an assessment on identical facts under a different deeming provision is invalid. The key takeaway ...
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 : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that an interest-bearing loan can still be taxed as deemed dividend where all statutory conditions under Secti...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of a registered or beneficial ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend provisions require evidence of withdrawal from a company in which the assessee is a shareh...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT ruled that once substantive addition under Section 2(22)(e) is sustained in the managing partners case, the cor...
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 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
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.
