<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (7) TMI 166 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69703</link>
    <description>A shareholder&#039;s loan was held outside deemed-dividend treatment where the company showed that money-lending formed a substantial part of its business and the advance was made in the ordinary course of that business. The record reflected repeated advances across assessment years, receipt of interest, prior assessments treating that interest as business income, and a shift from factory operations to lending activity. On that material, the advance was treated as part of the company&#039;s money-lending business rather than a disguised dividend distribution. A belated affidavit was rejected, but the existing record was sufficient. The addition on deemed-dividend footing was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (7) TMI 166 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69703</link>
      <description>A shareholder&#039;s loan was held outside deemed-dividend treatment where the company showed that money-lending formed a substantial part of its business and the advance was made in the ordinary course of that business. The record reflected repeated advances across assessment years, receipt of interest, prior assessments treating that interest as business income, and a shift from factory operations to lending activity. On that material, the advance was treated as part of the company&#039;s money-lending business rather than a disguised dividend distribution. A belated affidavit was rejected, but the existing record was sufficient. The addition on deemed-dividend footing was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>