https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276933 Section 2(6A)(e) read with section 12(1B) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid anti-avoidance measure within Parliament's power to tax income under Entry 82 of List I. The Court held that the deeming fiction treating loans or advances from closely controlled companies, to the extent of accumulated profits, as dividend was an ancillary device to prevent tax evasion and was not beyond legislative competence. It also found no violation of Article 14, as the classification had a rational nexus with the object of preventing avoidance, no infringement of Article 19(1)(g), because the provisions did not restrict borrowing or business itself, and no colourable legislation, since the substance remained taxation of income. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:31:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276933 Section 2(6A)(e) read with section 12(1B) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid anti-avoidance measure within Parliament's power to tax income under Entry 82 of List I. The Court held that the deeming fiction treating loans or advances from closely controlled companies, to the extent of accumulated profits, as dividend was an ancillary device to prevent tax evasion and was not beyond legislative competence. It also found no violation of Article 14, as the classification had a rational nexus with the object of preventing avoidance, no infringement of Article 19(1)(g), because the provisions did not restrict borrowing or business itself, and no colourable legislation, since the substance remained taxation of income. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276933