Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
