Deemed Dividend-Loan to firm where partners are shareholders of the company. Advances not considered deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1224 (2017) (04) ITAT The Grievance: The appellant assessee was aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the order
Advance for purchasing capital assets not deemed divided u/s 2(22)(e). It was a trade advance in the normal course of business – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1180 (2017) (03) ITAT The Grievance: The appellant assessee company was aggrieved by the addition made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’)
Deemed dividend-share premium not part of accumulated profits. Proportionate taxation u/s 2(22)(e) to be made if more than one shareholder satisfy conditions-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1139 (2017) (02) ITAT Assessment Year : 2009-10 Date/Month of Pronouncement: February, 2017 Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Commissioner of Income Tax
Payments to HUF held deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) because the prescribed conditions were fulfilled notwithstanding the fact that the HUF itself was not the registered shareholder of the company-Supreme Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1095 (2017) (01) SC Assessment Year : 2006-07 Important Case Laws Cited: Binal Sevantilal Koradia
When the company was compensated by way of interest on loan taken, the assessee shareholder in real sense did not derive any benefit from the funds of the Company so as to attract the provisions deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA I.T.A. No.