VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 783/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)
115O by distributing the dividend under the guise of loans & advances meant for the benefits of the recipient shareholders. However, in the facts of the present case, where there is a frequent giving (of the amounts) and receiving back how it can be said that the amounts given were meant for the benefit of the recipient shareholders
