https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34684 HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that payments made by a sister concern to the assessee company were commercial advances, not loans, and therefore did not constitute deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). The court accepted that the amounts were business advances to be adjusted against future entitlements, noting that "advance" may not carry repayment or interest obligations unless read with "loan." Because the transactions benefitted both parties and lacked attributes of a loan, they fell outside the statutory definition of deemed dividend. en-us Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 17:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34684 HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that payments made by a sister concern to the assessee company were commercial advances, not loans, and therefore did not constitute deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). The court accepted that the amounts were business advances to be adjusted against future entitlements, noting that "advance" may not carry repayment or interest obligations unless read with "loan." Because the transactions benefitted both parties and lacked attributes of a loan, they fell outside the statutory definition of deemed dividend. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34684