<?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>2010 (11) TMI 998 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181751</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, stating that the AO had jurisdiction over both entities. However, it ruled against treating amounts received as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e), finding them to be for business purposes. The Tribunal also upheld the levy of interest under Section 234B. As a result, the assessee&#039;s appeal was partly allowed, with the computation issue indirectly resolved in favor of the assessee due to the deemed dividends ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:58:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 998 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181751</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, stating that the AO had jurisdiction over both entities. However, it ruled against treating amounts received as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e), finding them to be for business purposes. The Tribunal also upheld the levy of interest under Section 234B. As a result, the assessee&#039;s appeal was partly allowed, with the computation issue indirectly resolved in favor of the assessee due to the deemed dividends ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>