https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204888 Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was contested where a shareholder's property was mortgaged to secure a company loan and the company paid an advance to compensate the shareholder. The court accepted that the advance was made to protect the company's business interest and to retain loan benefits, not as a gratuitous payment to the shareholder; it relied on precedent distinguishing protective commercial payments from deemed dividends and found that lower authorities erred in treating the payment as a deemed dividend, deciding in the taxpayer's favour. en-us Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204888 Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was contested where a shareholder's property was mortgaged to secure a company loan and the company paid an advance to compensate the shareholder. The court accepted that the advance was made to protect the company's business interest and to retain loan benefits, not as a gratuitous payment to the shareholder; it relied on precedent distinguishing protective commercial payments from deemed dividends and found that lower authorities erred in treating the payment as a deemed dividend, deciding in the taxpayer's favour. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204888