https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373633 The High Court upheld the decision regarding the interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the recipient was deemed a shareholder and loans or advances were not considered income. Consequently, the deletion of the deemed dividend amount was upheld. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the Keyman insurance policy premium was an allowable expense based on the CBDT Circular and lack of contradictory evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373633 The High Court upheld the decision regarding the interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the recipient was deemed a shareholder and loans or advances were not considered income. Consequently, the deletion of the deemed dividend amount was upheld. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the Keyman insurance policy premium was an allowable expense based on the CBDT Circular and lack of contradictory evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373633