https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260135 A payment received from a closely held company was not accepted as outside the deemed-dividend rule because the claim that it was only a business accommodation lacked supporting material; the issue was remanded for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer. For inherited capital assets, indexation of cost was held available from the year the previous owner first held the asset, because the deeming rules on holding period and acquisition apply to succession cases. The Revenue's objection on indexation failed, while the deemed-dividend issue required reconsideration on evidence. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2015 18:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260135 A payment received from a closely held company was not accepted as outside the deemed-dividend rule because the claim that it was only a business accommodation lacked supporting material; the issue was remanded for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer. For inherited capital assets, indexation of cost was held available from the year the previous owner first held the asset, because the deeming rules on holding period and acquisition apply to succession cases. The Revenue's objection on indexation failed, while the deemed-dividend issue required reconsideration on evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260135