https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420429 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the company's funding of residential property construction did not constitute a loan or advance under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 for taxability in shareholders' hands was deemed unsustainable due to the construction being part of the company's normal business activities. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specific errors to invoke Section 263 and criticized the lack of pointing out such errors by the Pr. CIT. Consequently, the Section 263 order was quashed, and the appeals by the assessees were allowed. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Apr 2022 08:35:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420429 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the company's funding of residential property construction did not constitute a loan or advance under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 for taxability in shareholders' hands was deemed unsustainable due to the construction being part of the company's normal business activities. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specific errors to invoke Section 263 and criticized the lack of pointing out such errors by the Pr. CIT. Consequently, the Section 263 order was quashed, and the appeals by the assessees were allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420429