https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38004 Section 2(22)(e) was construed strictly: "shareholder" was held to mean the registered shareholder only, not a beneficial owner or a firm merely because its partners held shares in their own names. Because the respondent-firm was not entered in the companies' share registers and the loans were not advanced to the registered shareholders in their capacity as shareholders, the loans or deposits could not be treated as deemed dividend in the firm's hands. The deemed-dividend provision therefore did not apply to the firm, and the appeal failed against the Revenue. en-us Wed, 06 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:13:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38004 Section 2(22)(e) was construed strictly: "shareholder" was held to mean the registered shareholder only, not a beneficial owner or a firm merely because its partners held shares in their own names. Because the respondent-firm was not entered in the companies' share registers and the loans were not advanced to the registered shareholders in their capacity as shareholders, the loans or deposits could not be treated as deemed dividend in the firm's hands. The deemed-dividend provision therefore did not apply to the firm, and the appeal failed against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38004