https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12207 The dominant issue was whether an advance received by an assessee-shareholder from a closely held company, described as rental advance under a lease, could escape characterization as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e). The HC held that the lease deed expressly treated the payment as an advance to meet construction costs and mandated its adjustment against rent payable for specified floors in future years, with the rent quantified; thus it was an advance within the mischief of s. 2(22)(e) rather than a genuine rent receipt outside the provision. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 21:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12207 The dominant issue was whether an advance received by an assessee-shareholder from a closely held company, described as rental advance under a lease, could escape characterization as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e). The HC held that the lease deed expressly treated the payment as an advance to meet construction costs and mandated its adjustment against rent payable for specified floors in future years, with the rent quantified; thus it was an advance within the mischief of s. 2(22)(e) rather than a genuine rent receipt outside the provision. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12207