https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180563 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by ruling that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in invoking Section 2(22)(e) for the assessment year, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the amounts received were not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) as they were provided for business exigencies, emphasizing commercial expediency. However, the Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under Section 234B, deeming it mandatory and consequential. en-us Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:56:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180563 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by ruling that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in invoking Section 2(22)(e) for the assessment year, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the amounts received were not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) as they were provided for business exigencies, emphasizing commercial expediency. However, the Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under Section 234B, deeming it mandatory and consequential. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180563