<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (11) TMI 309 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429885</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that only the peak credit balance should be considered for determining deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal set aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act, disagreeing with the Principal Commissioner&#039;s view that each overdrawn balance should be treated as a separate withdrawal for calculating deemed dividend.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 11:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 309 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429885</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that only the peak credit balance should be considered for determining deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal set aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act, disagreeing with the Principal Commissioner&#039;s view that each overdrawn balance should be treated as a separate withdrawal for calculating deemed dividend.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>