https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251907 The HC upheld the Tribunal's decision that security deposits received from a sister concern were not loans or advances and thus not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). The court found the deposits were business transactions in the normal course and not payments to shareholders for individual benefit. The obligation to repay deposits arises on demand, distinguishing them from loans repayable immediately. Consequently, the provisions taxing such amounts as deemed dividends did not apply. The decision was against the revenue. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Aug 2025 17:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251907 The HC upheld the Tribunal's decision that security deposits received from a sister concern were not loans or advances and thus not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). The court found the deposits were business transactions in the normal course and not payments to shareholders for individual benefit. The obligation to repay deposits arises on demand, distinguishing them from loans repayable immediately. Consequently, the provisions taxing such amounts as deemed dividends did not apply. The decision was against the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251907