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 : The issue was addition of deemed dividend under search assessment. The tribunal held that without incriminating material, addition...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
Income Tax : The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books do...
Income Tax : The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot apply where the assessee held less than 10% shareholding in the lending company. As s...
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 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.
