https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215271 The appellant's challenge regarding the disallowance of depreciation on electric fittings was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification as both parties failed to provide asset details. The issue for the current year was also sent back for the Assessing Officer's decision, following the precedent that depreciation rates vary based on usage. On the addition of deemed dividend due to a loan, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the loan did not qualify as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) based on specific shareholding criteria. The appeal was partly allowed, and the addition was deleted. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215271 The appellant's challenge regarding the disallowance of depreciation on electric fittings was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification as both parties failed to provide asset details. The issue for the current year was also sent back for the Assessing Officer's decision, following the precedent that depreciation rates vary based on usage. On the addition of deemed dividend due to a loan, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the loan did not qualify as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) based on specific shareholding criteria. The appeal was partly allowed, and the addition was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215271