Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
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...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
