https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271454 The ITAT allowed both appeals by the assessee. In the first case regarding the adjustment of excise duty on opening stock for A.Y. 1999-2000, the ITAT directed the adjustment in accordance with Section 145A, despite the A.O. and CIT(A) denying the claim. In the second case concerning the treatment of an advance as deemed dividend for A.Y. 2005-06, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the transactions were business dealings and not loans or advances, thus not falling under Section 2(22)(e). en-us Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2016 06:15:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271454 The ITAT allowed both appeals by the assessee. In the first case regarding the adjustment of excise duty on opening stock for A.Y. 1999-2000, the ITAT directed the adjustment in accordance with Section 145A, despite the A.O. and CIT(A) denying the claim. In the second case concerning the treatment of an advance as deemed dividend for A.Y. 2005-06, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the transactions were business dealings and not loans or advances, thus not falling under Section 2(22)(e). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271454