Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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.