https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784695 The dominant issue was whether amounts received by an assessee from a closely held company were taxable as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) on the basis of accumulated profits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without examining whether the payment was a trade advance arising from a commercial transaction, which CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 (as supported by HC jurisprudence) excludes from s. 2(22)(e). The matter was set aside to the AO to verify evidence of repayment in the subsequent year and to pass a fresh order; the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:25:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784695 The dominant issue was whether amounts received by an assessee from a closely held company were taxable as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) on the basis of accumulated profits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without examining whether the payment was a trade advance arising from a commercial transaction, which CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 (as supported by HC jurisprudence) excludes from s. 2(22)(e). The matter was set aside to the AO to verify evidence of repayment in the subsequent year and to pass a fresh order; the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784695