<?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>2017 (12) TMI 369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352100</link>
    <description>The court examined the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act in a case involving a disputed amount treated as deemed dividend. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that as the cheque issued was never encashed, there was no actual payment, and thus, Section 2(22)(e) did not apply. Emphasizing the need for a physical transfer of money, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the provision operates on actual, not notional, payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2017 08:44:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352100</link>
      <description>The court examined the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act in a case involving a disputed amount treated as deemed dividend. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that as the cheque issued was never encashed, there was no actual payment, and thus, Section 2(22)(e) did not apply. Emphasizing the need for a physical transfer of money, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the provision operates on actual, not notional, payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>