https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353275 Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was held taxable only in the hands of a shareholder, so a loan received by a non-shareholder concern could not be assessed as such. A disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was also deleted because the dividend income had been offered to tax, no exempt-income claim was made, and no nexus between expenditure and exempt income was shown. An addition for alleged insurance commission based only on ITS/TDS information was rejected for lack of corroborative material. The deletions made by the first appellate authority were sustained on all issues. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 06:00:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353275 Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was held taxable only in the hands of a shareholder, so a loan received by a non-shareholder concern could not be assessed as such. A disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was also deleted because the dividend income had been offered to tax, no exempt-income claim was made, and no nexus between expenditure and exempt income was shown. An addition for alleged insurance commission based only on ITS/TDS information was rejected for lack of corroborative material. The deletions made by the first appellate authority were sustained on all issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353275