Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC held that payments made by appellant to parent company in normal course of business as commercial transactions do not constitute deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The court relied on precedential decisions from Punjab and Haryana HC and Delhi HC, which established that trade advances made for business expediency are not treated as advances attracting deemed dividend provisions. The Supreme Court's dismissal of revenue's appeal against Punjab and Haryana HC judgment reinforced this position. Subsequently, CBDT issued Circular No.19 of 2017 acknowledging this settled legal position, directing department officers not to file appeals on this ground and withdraw existing ones. The HC concluded that ITAT's remand order was uncalled for and any consequential orders detrimental to assessee would be rendered bad in law, effectively settling the issue in favor of taxpayer.
The HC held that payments made by appellant to parent company in normal course of business as commercial transactions do not constitute deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The court relied on precedential decisions from Punjab and Haryana HC and Delhi HC, which established that trade advances made for business expediency are not treated as advances attracting deemed dividend provisions. The Supreme Court's dismissal of revenue's appeal against Punjab and Haryana HC judgment reinforced this position. Subsequently, CBDT issued Circular No.19 of 2017 acknowledging this settled legal position, directing department officers not to file appeals on this ground and withdraw existing ones. The HC concluded that ITAT's remand order was uncalled for and any consequential orders detrimental to assessee would be rendered bad in law, effectively settling the issue in favor of taxpayer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
