Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 2(22)

S.C : To attract section 2(22)(e), a ‘shareholder’ has only to be a person who is beneficial owner of shares; he need not necessarily be a registered shareholder; matter referred to CJI

Avijit Das / January 18, 2018

Supreme Court Of India National Travel Services Vs. CIT, Delhi, VIII Section 2(22) R.F. Nariman And Navin Sinha, JJ. Civil […]

Sec. 2(22), Section 148

Gujarat H.C : Where assessee claimed that no amount could be taxed in hands of assessee treating it as deemed dividend if it was not a shareholder of payee company but had not disputed that other conditions of section 2(22)(e) were satisfied in its case and return of assessee was accepted without scrutiny, reassessment was justified

Avijit Das / September 20, 2017

High Court Of Gujarat Sunrise Broking (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO Sections 2(22), 148 Akil Kureshi And Biren Vaishnav, JJ. Special

Sec. 2(22), Section 147

Gujarat H.C : Where assessee had made disclosures about borrowings from another company and had also filed necessary details thereof along with audited return, notice issued beyond a period of four years to enable Assessing Officer to examine applicability of section 2(22)(e) was to be set aside

Avijit Das / August 1, 2017

High Court Of Gujarat Gujarat Mall Management Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO- Ward 2(1)(1) Section 2(22), 147 Assessment year 2008-09

Sec. 2(22), Section 2

Delhi H.C : no deemed dividend even if the common director of the company is holding more than 20% share in both the donor & donee companies

Avijit Das / March 23, 2017

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. MCC Marketing (P.) Ltd. Assessment Year : 2006-07 Section : 2(22) Sanjiv Khanna And

S.C : HUF cannot be a registered shareholder in a company and hence could not have been both registered and beneficial shareholder, loan/advances received by HUF could be deemed as dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 especially in view of the term “concern” as defined in the Section itself

Avijit Das / January 4, 2017

Supreme Court Of India Gopal And Sons (HUF) vs. CIT, Kolkata-XI Section 2(22) Assessment Year 2006-07 A.K. Sikri And Abhay

Karnataka H.C : The assessee had failed to substantiate with documentary proof, the nexus between the acquisition of the property and the funds borrowed from its related party M/s. Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd

Avijit Das / February 23, 2016

High Court Of Karnataka Pr.CIT â€“ 4 vs. Rajeev Chandrashekar Section : 2(22) Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jayant Patel And

Section 147, Sec. 2(22), Sec. 37(1), Section 148, Section 48, Section 55

Karnataka H.C : the Tribunal was correct in upholding levy of tax on a different issue, which was not a subject matter for re-opening the assessment and moreover the reason recorded for the re-opening of the assessment itself does not survive

Avijit Das / July 1, 2015

High Court Of Karnataka N Govindaraju vs. ITO, Ward – 8(2), Bangalore Assessment Year : 2004-05 Section : 147, 148,

Section 201, Sec. 2(22)

Delhi H.C : To initiate proceedings against the assessee in default who does not deduct tax and secondly on merits the applicability of Section 2 (22) (e)

Avijit Das / February 9, 2015

High Court Of Delhi CIT (TDS)-I vs. C.J. International Hotels (P.) Ltd. Section : 201, 2(22) Assessment Years : 1999-2000

Bombay H.C : the Tribunal is right in placing reliance on the judgment in the case of ACIT v. M/s. Bhaumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. whereas in the instant case, the assessee is a registered and beneficial share holder of a company that has given loans to a third company that lent these, monies to the Assessee

Avijit Das / January 20, 2015

High Court Of Bombay CIT,Central-IV vs. Jignesh P. Shah Section : 2(22) Assessment Year : 2007-08 M.S. Sanklecha And G.S.

Allahabad H.C : Where lending of money was not part of business of lending companies, loan/advance given to assessee-shareholder would be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)

Avijit Das / December 9, 2014

High Court Of Allahabad Shashi Pal Agarwal Vs. CIT, Kanpur Section : 2(22) Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant

Post pagination

1 2 … 4 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top