https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407829 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete additions made under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found no distinguishing features in the facts compared to earlier years, applying the rule of consistency. The judgments were based on established judicial precedents, clarifying that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions do not constitute deemed dividends, and emphasizing the importance of verifying if the payee declared income and paid tax to avoid default under Section 40(a)(ia). en-us Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 May 2021 08:35:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407829 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete additions made under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found no distinguishing features in the facts compared to earlier years, applying the rule of consistency. The judgments were based on established judicial precedents, clarifying that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions do not constitute deemed dividends, and emphasizing the importance of verifying if the payee declared income and paid tax to avoid default under Section 40(a)(ia). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407829