https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465472 The dominant issue was whether amounts received by the taxpayer from a closely held company constituted deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 19/2017, the ITAT held that trade advances made in the course of commercial transactions, for business/commercial expediency, do not fall within "advance" for s. 2(22)(e). The Tribunal found the taxpayer consistently demonstrated commercial purpose (including a pre-existing joint venture arrangement) and the AO's addition was based on presumptions without disputing end-use or conducting contrary investigation; the HC ruling cited by Revenue was distinguishable. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the deemed dividend addition was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 19:22:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465472 The dominant issue was whether amounts received by the taxpayer from a closely held company constituted deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 19/2017, the ITAT held that trade advances made in the course of commercial transactions, for business/commercial expediency, do not fall within "advance" for s. 2(22)(e). The Tribunal found the taxpayer consistently demonstrated commercial purpose (including a pre-existing joint venture arrangement) and the AO's addition was based on presumptions without disputing end-use or conducting contrary investigation; the HC ruling cited by Revenue was distinguishable. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the deemed dividend addition was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465472