https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176141 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the assessment year 2004-05. The Court found that the amount given to the director was for land dealings, not for personal benefit, and was returned when the deal did not materialize. As the payment was considered an imprest payment, it could not be treated as deemed dividend. The appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law arising for consideration. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:01:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176141 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the assessment year 2004-05. The Court found that the amount given to the director was for land dealings, not for personal benefit, and was returned when the deal did not materialize. As the payment was considered an imprest payment, it could not be treated as deemed dividend. The appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law arising for consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176141