https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447238 ITAT Mumbai ruled on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(d) involving capital reduction by an Indian company. The tribunal upheld the AO's determination of accumulated profit using Ind-AS figures rather than IGAAP, rejecting the assessee's argument that reinstated figures were merely comparative. The court found that transition to Ind-AS required adoption of new accounting policies, making reinstated figures the actual financial position. Exemption under section 10(34) was denied as the Indian company failed to pay DDT, and the assessee being the controlling shareholder couldn't benefit from this failure. The MFN clause claim was dismissed as time-barred. Capital gains on share alienation were held taxable in India under Article 13(5) of the tax treaty. However, the tribunal allowed relief on surcharge and cess computation, directing the AO to levy only treaty rates without additional charges. en-us Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447238 ITAT Mumbai ruled on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(d) involving capital reduction by an Indian company. The tribunal upheld the AO's determination of accumulated profit using Ind-AS figures rather than IGAAP, rejecting the assessee's argument that reinstated figures were merely comparative. The court found that transition to Ind-AS required adoption of new accounting policies, making reinstated figures the actual financial position. Exemption under section 10(34) was denied as the Indian company failed to pay DDT, and the assessee being the controlling shareholder couldn't benefit from this failure. The MFN clause claim was dismissed as time-barred. Capital gains on share alienation were held taxable in India under Article 13(5) of the tax treaty. However, the tribunal allowed relief on surcharge and cess computation, directing the AO to levy only treaty rates without additional charges. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447238