https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468340 A firm that was neither the registered nor beneficial shareholder of the lending company could not be assessed on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) merely because its partners held shares, so the addition was deleted. The appellate authority could examine and enhance the assessment on the receipt arising from the joint development agreement, but the receipt could not be taxed as business income in the year under appeal because the arrangement remained contingent, the property had not been transferred or sold, and the amount described as security deposit was not sale consideration. The substantive additions were therefore deleted. en-us Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 15:49:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468340 A firm that was neither the registered nor beneficial shareholder of the lending company could not be assessed on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) merely because its partners held shares, so the addition was deleted. The appellate authority could examine and enhance the assessment on the receipt arising from the joint development agreement, but the receipt could not be taxed as business income in the year under appeal because the arrangement remained contingent, the property had not been transferred or sold, and the amount described as security deposit was not sale consideration. The substantive additions were therefore deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468340