<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Reopening assessment for deemed dividend on interest-free director loan denied as jurisdictionally barred and violative of fundamental rights.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96223</link>
    <description>Reopening of assessment challenged on the ground that an interest-free loan to a director constituted a deemed dividend; the Assessing Officer relied on alleged non-disclosure to invoke extended limitation. The court found audited accounts and the directors ledger disclosed the primary fact of the interest-free loan, so invocation of extended limitation and issuance of reassessment notice were jurisdictionally invalid; reassessment second time on the same transaction was arbitrary and contrary to the requirement that an assessee need only disclose primary facts, and violated equality, economic liberty and property protections, resulting in allowance of the writ petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:41:28 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:41:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=880169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reopening assessment for deemed dividend on interest-free director loan denied as jurisdictionally barred and violative of fundamental rights.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96223</link>
      <description>Reopening of assessment challenged on the ground that an interest-free loan to a director constituted a deemed dividend; the Assessing Officer relied on alleged non-disclosure to invoke extended limitation. The court found audited accounts and the directors ledger disclosed the primary fact of the interest-free loan, so invocation of extended limitation and issuance of reassessment notice were jurisdictionally invalid; reassessment second time on the same transaction was arbitrary and contrary to the requirement that an assessee need only disclose primary facts, and violated equality, economic liberty and property protections, resulting in allowance of the writ petitions.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:41:28 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>