https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465108 ITAT held that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee, namely the Board resolution of the lending company acknowledging the assessees' guarantees and mortgage of properties as collateral for bank finance, was crucial to determine whether the advances constituted deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) or were made for business expediency. Treating the documents as going to the root of the controversy and necessary for doing substantial justice, ITAT admitted the additional evidence, set aside the orders of the lower authorities, and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after granting adequate opportunity of hearing. Appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Dec 2025 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465108 ITAT held that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee, namely the Board resolution of the lending company acknowledging the assessees' guarantees and mortgage of properties as collateral for bank finance, was crucial to determine whether the advances constituted deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) or were made for business expediency. Treating the documents as going to the root of the controversy and necessary for doing substantial justice, ITAT admitted the additional evidence, set aside the orders of the lower authorities, and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after granting adequate opportunity of hearing. Appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465108