https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776657 The HC held that an advance granted by a company to its shareholder qualifies as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) if the advance is not utilized for the execution of business transactions. The key factor is the actual utilization of the advance, not the stated purpose. In this case, the advance was used by the assessee for payment of income tax, not for job work related to the company, thus attracting deemed dividend treatment. Repayment within the same financial year or maintaining a running account did not alter this conclusion. Concurrent findings that the advance was not used for business purposes were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, ruling in favor of the Revenue. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 15:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776657 The HC held that an advance granted by a company to its shareholder qualifies as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) if the advance is not utilized for the execution of business transactions. The key factor is the actual utilization of the advance, not the stated purpose. In this case, the advance was used by the assessee for payment of income tax, not for job work related to the company, thus attracting deemed dividend treatment. Repayment within the same financial year or maintaining a running account did not alter this conclusion. Concurrent findings that the advance was not used for business purposes were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, ruling in favor of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776657