<?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>2008 (4) TMI 428 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75003</link>
    <description>Regular commercial dealings between a travel agency and two tourism-sector concerns were treated as ordinary business transactions rather than loans or advances. Because the payments lacked the character of loan or advance, the deeming fiction under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not apply to treat them as deemed dividend. The tax consequence was therefore rejected and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 15:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 428 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75003</link>
      <description>Regular commercial dealings between a travel agency and two tourism-sector concerns were treated as ordinary business transactions rather than loans or advances. Because the payments lacked the character of loan or advance, the deeming fiction under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not apply to treat them as deemed dividend. The tax consequence was therefore rejected and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>