https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313444 The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the ITAT's decision to delete amounts taxed under Sections 2(22)(e) and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries, as the assessee provided sufficient details to meet the initial burden of proof. The Court confirmed that loans secured by mortgaging personal property did not constitute deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e), aligning with relevant judicial precedents. The disallowance of commission was also affirmed, with no substantial question of law identified, resulting in the disposal of all pending applications. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2026 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313444 The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the ITAT's decision to delete amounts taxed under Sections 2(22)(e) and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries, as the assessee provided sufficient details to meet the initial burden of proof. The Court confirmed that loans secured by mortgaging personal property did not constitute deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e), aligning with relevant judicial precedents. The disallowance of commission was also affirmed, with no substantial question of law identified, resulting in the disposal of all pending applications. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313444