<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (3) TMI 649 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325465</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals of both assessees, deleting the additions made under Section 2(22)(e) for both the Rs. 20,00,000 received from M/s. GAD Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the Rs. 4,42,800 treated as deemed dividend from M/s. Ecotunes India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the transactions were not loans or advances but business-related transactions, and thus, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:57:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 649 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325465</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals of both assessees, deleting the additions made under Section 2(22)(e) for both the Rs. 20,00,000 received from M/s. GAD Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the Rs. 4,42,800 treated as deemed dividend from M/s. Ecotunes India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the transactions were not loans or advances but business-related transactions, and thus, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>