Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was held inapplicable where loans from a closely held company were advanced in the ordinary course of its substantial money-lending business. The Tribunal's factual findings, based on the TDS certificate and ledger account, showed that the assessee paid interest on the borrowings and did not receive any gratuitous benefit from the company. Following the assessee's earlier year on identical facts, the Court accepted that money-lending formed a substantial part of the lender's business and that such advances fell outside the deemed dividend provision. As these conclusions were purely factual, no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was held inapplicable where loans from a closely held company were advanced in the ordinary course of its substantial money-lending business. The Tribunal's factual findings, based on the TDS certificate and ledger account, showed that the assessee paid interest on the borrowings and did not receive any gratuitous benefit from the company. Following the assessee's earlier year on identical facts, the Court accepted that money-lending formed a substantial part of the lender's business and that such advances fell outside the deemed dividend provision. As these conclusions were purely factual, no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.