https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330336 The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, as the payments did not qualify as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that for deemed dividend treatment to apply, payments must be made from accumulated profits, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Court upheld the finding that money lending activities constituted a substantial part of one company's business based on the percentage of funds utilized. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. en-us Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 10:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330336 The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, as the payments did not qualify as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that for deemed dividend treatment to apply, payments must be made from accumulated profits, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Court upheld the finding that money lending activities constituted a substantial part of one company's business based on the percentage of funds utilized. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330336