<?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>2024 (11) TMI 963 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761977</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the excess addition made under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. It restricted the deemed dividend to Rs. 4,79,825, aligning with judicial precedents that exclude current year&#039;s profits from accumulated profits for calculating deemed dividends. The Tribunal&#039;s decision overruled the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer&#039;s inclusion of current year&#039;s profits, thereby providing relief to the assessee by reducing the deemed dividend liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 963 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761977</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the excess addition made under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. It restricted the deemed dividend to Rs. 4,79,825, aligning with judicial precedents that exclude current year&#039;s profits from accumulated profits for calculating deemed dividends. The Tribunal&#039;s decision overruled the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer&#039;s inclusion of current year&#039;s profits, thereby providing relief to the assessee by reducing the deemed dividend liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>