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...
Allahabad High Court remands Kishori Lal Agrawal’s deemed dividend case, clarifying Section 2(22)(e) and ‘ordinary course of business’ for loans.
ITAT Delhi held that deeming fiction of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act cannot be attracted when loan or advances are made to person not being shareholder. Accordingly, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition and hence appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
The ITAT Mumbai has set aside a deemed dividend order against Yashvardhan Gokuldas Binani, allowing re-examination of a loan as a commercial transaction, citing non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi held that amount withdrawn by the assessee in the capacity of the partner from the partnership firm cannot be treated in the nature of loan and advance and cannot be covered within meaning of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore rules that a director’s mere custody of company funds, without personal use or formal loan, does not constitute a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that loan transaction between holding and subsidiary company done in the normal course of business and out of business/ commercial expediency are outside the scope of deemed dividend.
ITAT Mumbai held that trade advances, being in the nature of commercial transaction, would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and therefore the addition made by the AO is deleted. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the filing of a cross-objection. Thus, cross objection would not be maintainable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that trade advances, in the nature of commercial transactions, cannot be characterized as ‘loans or advance’ constituting deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). Thus, addition towards deemed dividend untenable.
Kerala High Court held that court cannot interfere with order of settlement commission if challenge is merely that Settlement Commission has chosen to take one of two possible views that can be legally taken in respect of an issue. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
