https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49340 Section 12(1B) read with section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a valid anti-avoidance deeming provision taxing loans or advances by closely controlled companies to shareholders as deemed dividend. The majority held that the income-tax entry in the Constitution permits a wide construction and that Parliament may use a limited legal fiction to counter distribution of accumulated profits in the guise of loans, subject to statutory safeguards such as accumulated profits and control conditions. The provisions were also held not to infringe article 19(1)(f) or (g), because they created only a tax consequence and did not impose an unreasonable restriction. The dissent considered the fiction excessive and constitutionally impermissible. en-us Wed, 28 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49340 Section 12(1B) read with section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a valid anti-avoidance deeming provision taxing loans or advances by closely controlled companies to shareholders as deemed dividend. The majority held that the income-tax entry in the Constitution permits a wide construction and that Parliament may use a limited legal fiction to counter distribution of accumulated profits in the guise of loans, subject to statutory safeguards such as accumulated profits and control conditions. The provisions were also held not to infringe article 19(1)(f) or (g), because they created only a tax consequence and did not impose an unreasonable restriction. The dissent considered the fiction excessive and constitutionally impermissible. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49340