https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287278 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of deemed dividend under Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act. The appellant's argument that funds were received for commercial expediency was rejected due to lack of authorization from the company's Board of Directors. The Tribunal found no new facts to distinguish the case from previous decisions, supporting the Commissioner's findings. The appellant's reliance on a Calcutta High Court judgment was deemed irrelevant as no evidence proved the amounts were for specific services. The decision stressed the significance of factual evidence and precedent in tax matters, affirming the Commissioner's decision. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2020 09:56:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287278 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of deemed dividend under Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act. The appellant's argument that funds were received for commercial expediency was rejected due to lack of authorization from the company's Board of Directors. The Tribunal found no new facts to distinguish the case from previous decisions, supporting the Commissioner's findings. The appellant's reliance on a Calcutta High Court judgment was deemed irrelevant as no evidence proved the amounts were for specific services. The decision stressed the significance of factual evidence and precedent in tax matters, affirming the Commissioner's decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287278