Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - proof of incriminating material found in the course of search - There is no loan or advance received by the assessee from the company. It is seen that even as per the case of the A.O. made in the assessment order, the loan or advance has been received by the assessee from the partnership firm. Therefore, as per the admitted case of the A.O., such loan or advance having not been received by the assessee from a closely held company cannot be treated as dividend u/s 2(22)(e), since the first ingredient of section 2(22)(e) itself is not met in this case. - AT
Addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - proof of incriminating material found in the course of search - There is no loan or advance received by the assessee from the company. It is seen that even as per the case of the A.O. made in the assessment order, the loan or advance has been received by the assessee from the partnership firm. Therefore, as per the admitted case of the A.O., such loan or advance having not been received by the assessee from a closely held company cannot be treated as dividend u/s 2(22)(e), since the first ingredient of section 2(22)(e) itself is not met in this case. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
