S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Amount received in earlier years-Addition was not justified.
Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 54 (UO) / 140 taxmann.com 21 (Pune)(Trib)S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Amount received in earlier years-Addition was not justified.
Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 54 (UO) / 140 taxmann.com 21 (Pune)(Trib)S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loan to shareholder-Loan made in ordinary course-Separate loan account and trade account of assessee-Loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend at the hands of assessee.
Kankuben Karshanbhai Tejani (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2022) 98 ITR 702 //(2023) 198 ITD 304 (Surat) (Trib.)S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loans and advances-Advance to business purposes-Deemed dividend provision is not applicable.
Dy. CIT v. Gurmeet Singh Anand (2022) 98 ITR 85 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loan to Shareholder-Nature of business of company to lend money-Advanced money to assessee shareholder for exigency and charged interest-Loan not assessable as deemed dividend.
ACIT v. Krishna Coil Cutters Pvt. Ltd. (2022)98 ITR 650 (Ahd) (Trib)S. 2(22)(d) : Dividend-Any distribution to its share holders on the reduction of its share capital-Deemed dividend-Redemption of Preference shares at premium-Not assessable as dividend-Addition was deleted. [S. 2(22)(e), R. 11UA(1)(c)(b), 11UA (1)(c)(c)]
Information Technology Park Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 99 ITR 633 (Bang.)(Trib)S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Revenue records are ultimate proof of the land being agricultural land-Land situated beyond prescribed Limit-Cannot be considered as non-agricultural Land. [S. 45]
Mohideen Sharif Inayathulla Sharif v. ITO (2022) 95 ITR 345 (Chennai) (Trib)S. 69A : Unexplained money – Advocate – Seizure of cash – Cash withdrawal from Bank – Professional fees received cash – Name of the client from whom cash received was disclosed – The cash amount was disclosed in the books of account – Revenue cannot ask the asseessee to prove the source of the source -Addition was deleted [ S.44AB , 131(IA) ]
Ramachandra Kanu Mendadkar v CIT(A) (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org .S. 12AB: Procedure for fresh registration – Cancellation of registration –Withdrawal of registration cannot be done retrospectively Commissioner Central has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration – – Cancellation of registration was quashed- Alternative contentions became academic hence not dealt with .[ S.11, [12A, 12AB(4) , 13 ]
Heart Foundation of India v.CIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 45 : Capital gains – Sale of shares held as investment – Indexed cost of acquisition – Cannot be assessed as business income – Issue of bonus shares is held to be justified – Sale of shares at cost – Short term capital loss allowable to be set off against long term capital gains-Transaction cannot be held to be colourable device to set off the long term capital gains- Loss was allowed to be set off . [ S. 28(i) , 70, 71 ]
J.M .Financial Ltd v. Dy .CIT (2023) 226 TTJ 729 ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline.orgS. 279 : Offences and prosecutions – Sanction – Chief Commissioner –Tax deduction at source – Compounding application – Application was filed beyond twelve months- Rejection of application was set aside. [S. 200,276B, 278B, 279(2), Art, 226]
Footcandles Film (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 453 ITR 402 / 333 CTR 612 /146 taxmann.com 304 (Bom)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , ITO v. Footcandles Film (P.) Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 410 (SC)