<?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>Tax Case: Misclassification of Benefits as Perquisites Instead of Deemed Dividends u/ss 2(22)(a) and 2(24)(iv.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=6266</link>
    <description>Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(a) - perquisite u/s 2(24)(iv) - CIT(A) is not justified to hold that it is perquisite benefit given by HPPL to its shareholder and not the transfer of occupancy rights to its shareholders. - AO has rightly held that the value of flats received are nothing but dividend given in the form of assets by HPPL. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:56:29 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:56:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=296775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Case: Misclassification of Benefits as Perquisites Instead of Deemed Dividends u/ss 2(22)(a) and 2(24)(iv.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=6266</link>
      <description>Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(a) - perquisite u/s 2(24)(iv) - CIT(A) is not justified to hold that it is perquisite benefit given by HPPL to its shareholder and not the transfer of occupancy rights to its shareholders. - AO has rightly held that the value of flats received are nothing but dividend given in the form of assets by HPPL. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:56:29 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=6266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>