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...
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.
Held that provision of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked unless the recipient of loan is a shareholder of the company. If recipient of loan is not shareholder in a company from which loan is received, such loan cannot be assessed as deemed divided.
DCIT Vs Essel Finance VKC Forex Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) assessee has advanced sum of Rs.7.5 Crores to another entity for taking a property on lease. The same has been treated by Ld. AO as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act on the ground that one of the directors of the assessee company held substantial […]
ITAT held that if the amounts advanced are for business transactions between the parties, such payment would not fall within the deeming dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Explore the ITAT Visakhapatnam’s resolution in the case of Smt. Sabhapathi Padmasree vs. ITO regarding deemed dividends. Learn how collateral security provided by the assessee impacted the tax treatment of loans and advances under section 2(22)(e).
ACIT Vs Vserve Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the assessee is not a share holder in Intersoft Data Labs Labs Pvt. Ltd. which provided interest free loans to the assessee only because the assessee as well as lender entity are having a common shareholder the Assessing […]
