https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169584 Sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(1B) of the Indian Income-tax Act were treated as valid anti-avoidance provisions because they deemed loans and advances by controlled companies to shareholders, up to accumulated profits, as dividends to curb diversion of profits through loans. The court held that such provisions fell within Parliament's legislative competence over taxes on income, given the wide scope of that power and its ancillary reach, and could also be supported by residuary competence. The classification was upheld under article 14 because it applied uniformly to a rational class of controlled companies and shareholders, with the distinction directly linked to preventing tax evasion. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:00:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169584 Sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(1B) of the Indian Income-tax Act were treated as valid anti-avoidance provisions because they deemed loans and advances by controlled companies to shareholders, up to accumulated profits, as dividends to curb diversion of profits through loans. The court held that such provisions fell within Parliament's legislative competence over taxes on income, given the wide scope of that power and its ancillary reach, and could also be supported by residuary competence. The classification was upheld under article 14 because it applied uniformly to a rational class of controlled companies and shareholders, with the distinction directly linked to preventing tax evasion. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169584