Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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.