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 u/s 2(22)(e) was added by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee, a director and substantial shareholder in a private company, had received a loan from the company. The assessee contended that the provisions apply only to actual cash payments, not journal entries. The Tribunal observed that the addition was based on advances presented as mere journal entries, suggesting no actual loan was received. The assessee consistently explained this before the authorities, but it was not adequately examined. The Tribunal held that since the assessee's contention of no sum being received, only a journal entry passed, was not verified, the CIT(A)'s order was liable to be set aside for lack of findings on this crucial aspect. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) was added by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee, a director and substantial shareholder in a private company, had received a loan from the company. The assessee contended that the provisions apply only to actual cash payments, not journal entries. The Tribunal observed that the addition was based on advances presented as mere journal entries, suggesting no actual loan was received. The assessee consistently explained this before the authorities, but it was not adequately examined. The Tribunal held that since the assessee's contention of no sum being received, only a journal entry passed, was not verified, the CIT(A)'s order was liable to be set aside for lack of findings on this crucial aspect. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
