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...
Assessee is not a recipient but payer of loan. Hence, as per provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, assessee was not liable to tax
If depreciation as per Income Tax Act is taken into account then the accumulated profits of the assessee would be working out to be in negative meaning thereby that there are no accumulated profits for Section 2(22)(e)
ITAT Mumbai held that while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, the current profit is not to be included to be part of accumulated profit.
Held that if such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration, which is beneficial to the company received from such shareholder then in such advance or loan cannot be said to be deemed dividend within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT (Orissa High Court) A plain reading of ection 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicates that the taxing of the deemed dividend has to be in the hands of the shareholder of OSL. In the present case, admittedly it is Mr. Mishra in his individual capacity who holds 36.95% of […]
Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee contended that the impugned amounts were taken for the purpose of business activities of the company and the advance of Rs.14,44,730/- from M/s. Rustogi Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.3,35,38,660/- from M/s. Rustogi Projects Private Limited and the same was received as business advances. The ld. AR further […]
ACIT Vs Bhagwati Coal Movers (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that the ‘Security Premium Reserve’ cannot be regarded as part of accumulated profits under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Facts- AO observed that the assessee has obtained loan amounting to Rs.5,52,50,000/- from M/s. Ajmala Stationery Ltd. A part of the loan […]
Assessee had not disputed that he is common shareholder in both companies, however, contended that provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application, inasmuch as, loan advanced was in ordinary course of its business.
Assessee firm has obtained loans from the sister concern on commercial basis. On facts it has emerged that the lender company has charged interest on advances made to assessee firm. The assessee has taken plea that the advances made by the lender company to the borrower assessee firm is not a loan/advance but is beset with the character of quid pro quo owing to charge of interest for the benefit of lender company.
It is an admitted position that the alleged expenses incurred by the Assessee were business expenses of the company and therefore no personal benefit accrues to the Assessee as alleged by the authorities below. Hence, this Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked by alleging that Assessee had benefitted.
