TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the payment made to the partnership firm on the footing that the firm was not a shareholder in the company; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's deletion of the disallowance of long-term capital loss could be interfered with on the ground that the factual inquiry was incomplete and the finding was perverse.
Issue (i): Whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the payment made to the partnership firm on the footing that the firm was not a shareholder in the company.
Analysis: The payment was treated by the appellate authorities as outside the scope of deemed dividend because the recipient firm was not the shareholder. That reasoning could not survive in view of the settled position governing section 2(22)(e), and the question framed on this aspect had to be answered on that basis. The assessee's additional contention that the amount was not paid out of accumulated profits had not been examined by the lower authorities and therefore required reconsideration.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with the alternate contention on accumulated profits remitted to the Tribunal.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's deletion of the disallowance of long-term capital loss could be interfered with on the ground that the factual inquiry was incomplete and the finding was perverse.
Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had produced material demonstrating payment of the agreed consideration, while the Revenue's factual assertion to the contrary was incorrect. At the same time, the assessment enquiry on several surrounding circumstances was incomplete, and the material available was insufficient to conclude that the Tribunal's view was perverse. In an appeal under section 260A, interference on a pure factual challenge could not be justified on the incomplete record.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's deletion of the disallowance of long-term capital loss was not interfered with.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the deemed-dividend issue, but the capital-loss issue was left undisturbed, and the remaining factual controversy on accumulated profits was sent back for adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding cannot be disturbed in appeal under section 260A on a claim of perversity unless the record is complete enough to show that the finding is irrational, while the applicability of section 2(22)(e) must be determined on the substantive legal ingredients of the provision and not merely on the ground that the recipient is not a shareholder.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
