https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256619 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the department's appeals for all three assessment years. The judgment emphasized the strict interpretation of sec. 2(22)(e) and the crucial distinction between registered shareholders and beneficial owners in determining liability for deemed dividends. The Special Bench's decision was cited, clarifying that deemed dividends under sec. 2(22)(e) can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company. en-us Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:50:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256619 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the department's appeals for all three assessment years. The judgment emphasized the strict interpretation of sec. 2(22)(e) and the crucial distinction between registered shareholders and beneficial owners in determining liability for deemed dividends. The Special Bench's decision was cited, clarifying that deemed dividends under sec. 2(22)(e) can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256619