https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769822 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e). The assessee contended no loan or advance was received from the companies in question. ITAT held that substantial difference exists between investment and advance, and AO disregarded the nature of payments between entities. The factual findings by CIT(A) regarding payment nature attained finality without revenue rebuttal. Since s.2(22)(e) creates harsh fiction requiring strict construction, and none of its ingredients were satisfied, amounts withdrawn by assessee as partner from partnership firm could not be treated as deemed dividend. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 May 2025 08:54:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769822 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e). The assessee contended no loan or advance was received from the companies in question. ITAT held that substantial difference exists between investment and advance, and AO disregarded the nature of payments between entities. The factual findings by CIT(A) regarding payment nature attained finality without revenue rebuttal. Since s.2(22)(e) creates harsh fiction requiring strict construction, and none of its ingredients were satisfied, amounts withdrawn by assessee as partner from partnership firm could not be treated as deemed dividend. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769822