Tuesday, 13 December 2011

S. 2(22)(e) does not apply to “non-gratuitous” advances to substantial shareholder

Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)


 
The assessee, a substantial shareholder in a closely held company, let out his flat to the company and also permitted it to place it on mortgage. In consideration, the company passed a resolution authorizing the assessee to obtain from the company an interest-free deposit up to Rs.50 lakhs. He also received an amount by way of “security deposit”. The AO assessed the said “advances/ deposits” as “deemed dividend” u/s 2(22)(e). The CIT (A) deleted the addition though the Tribunal upheld it. On appeal by the assessee, HELD reversing the Tribunal:

No comments:

No Permanent Establishment Unless Proven by the Revenue

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) recently in the case of SAIC clarified an important principle in international taxation: th...