https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63793 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the credit balances were security deposits/performance guarantees, not loans/advances, exempting the assessee from s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Regarding the Rs. 40,50,000 amount, the Tribunal ruled it did not constitute deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e), emphasizing the nature of security deposits in business transactions and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. en-us Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63793 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the credit balances were security deposits/performance guarantees, not loans/advances, exempting the assessee from s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Regarding the Rs. 40,50,000 amount, the Tribunal ruled it did not constitute deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e), emphasizing the nature of security deposits in business transactions and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63793