https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344250 The HC ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. First, regarding income classification from property development, the court held that gains from improvement and sale of property held since 1965 and shown as fixed assets could not be treated as business income or adventure in the nature of trade. The AO made no finding that the assessee was engaged in real estate business, and the intention was to hold rather than trade the property. Second, on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), the court determined that deemed dividend is chargeable to common shareholders, not recipients of money unless the recipient company is also a shareholder of the lending company. Since the AO did not question the genuineness of documents regarding share trading and the assessee's explanation was adequate, no disallowance was warranted. en-us Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344250 The HC ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. First, regarding income classification from property development, the court held that gains from improvement and sale of property held since 1965 and shown as fixed assets could not be treated as business income or adventure in the nature of trade. The AO made no finding that the assessee was engaged in real estate business, and the intention was to hold rather than trade the property. Second, on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), the court determined that deemed dividend is chargeable to common shareholders, not recipients of money unless the recipient company is also a shareholder of the lending company. Since the AO did not question the genuineness of documents regarding share trading and the assessee's explanation was adequate, no disallowance was warranted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344250