https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409497 Deemed dividend treatment of a shareholder advance was contested; the tribunal held the loan advance did not constitute a deemed dividend because the assessee produced documentary evidence, the CIT(A) sought and considered a remand report, and recorded explicit findings which the tribunal affirmed. The tribunal also relied on an earlier high court precedent to support its analysis. The outcome is that the advance was not taxed as a deemed dividend and the decision was favourable to the assessee, based on meticulous appreciation of evidence and remand proceedings. en-us Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409497 Deemed dividend treatment of a shareholder advance was contested; the tribunal held the loan advance did not constitute a deemed dividend because the assessee produced documentary evidence, the CIT(A) sought and considered a remand report, and recorded explicit findings which the tribunal affirmed. The tribunal also relied on an earlier high court precedent to support its analysis. The outcome is that the advance was not taxed as a deemed dividend and the decision was favourable to the assessee, based on meticulous appreciation of evidence and remand proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409497