TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC dismisses Special Leave Petitions, upholds High Court judgment. Delay condoned, no interference based on facts.</h1> <h3>THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SUBRATA ROY SAHARA</h3> The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions after condoning the delay, choosing not to interfere with the High Court's judgment based on the noted facts. ... Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Apex Court dismissed the revenue appeal after condoning the delay against the decision of HC [2015 (3) TMI 767 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein HC hald that, Loan to the assessee and the loan (in the form of credits in favour of SISICOL) were really one transaction. It is also a matter of record that the firm had over 290 branches or units and collection by it exceeded- on an average ₹ 10 crores per month. Therefore, it could not be legitimately held that amount retained by the firm was for the assessee’s benefit. The amount of ₹ 1,84,19,305 was not deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petitions after condoning the delay. The court did not interfere based on the facts noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
