https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352541 An article discussing Bombay HC tax principles states that an inter-corporate deposit by a public company cannot be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) merely because the recipient held substantial shares, where the lender's status as a public company and the nature of the advance did not satisfy the statutory conditions. It also notes that employees' contributions to provident fund and ESIC paid within the legally recognised grace period are not liable to disallowance, applying the post-amendment position under Section 43B and the rule in Alom Extrusions. On that basis, the Tribunal's view was sustained and no substantial question of law was found. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352541 An article discussing Bombay HC tax principles states that an inter-corporate deposit by a public company cannot be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) merely because the recipient held substantial shares, where the lender's status as a public company and the nature of the advance did not satisfy the statutory conditions. It also notes that employees' contributions to provident fund and ESIC paid within the legally recognised grace period are not liable to disallowance, applying the post-amendment position under Section 43B and the rule in Alom Extrusions. On that basis, the Tribunal's view was sustained and no substantial question of law was found. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352541