https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264736 Reassessment under section 147 was upheld because the Assessing Officer had a contemporaneous belief that unsecured loans constituted deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), and later deletion of a similar addition in another year did not invalidate the reopening on these facts. The bad debt claim under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) was remanded for verification because the assessee asserted an actual write-off in the accounts, requiring factual examination. The section 14A disallowance was also remanded as the assessee's suo motu working and claim of availability of own or interest-free funds had not been examined in light of the relevant precedents. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264736 Reassessment under section 147 was upheld because the Assessing Officer had a contemporaneous belief that unsecured loans constituted deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), and later deletion of a similar addition in another year did not invalidate the reopening on these facts. The bad debt claim under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) was remanded for verification because the assessee asserted an actual write-off in the accounts, requiring factual examination. The section 14A disallowance was also remanded as the assessee's suo motu working and claim of availability of own or interest-free funds had not been examined in light of the relevant precedents. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264736