Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 913 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) - loan taken during the current financial year on various dates - The case of the assessee is that there was no accumulated profit with loan provider and, thus, the alleged loan could at best be treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profit only - HELD THAT:- In the light of the decision of ITAT, Cochin Bench, in the case of ITO vs. Gordhandas Khimji [1984 (8) TMI 116 - ITAT COCHIN], the accumulated profit of earlier years is to be treated as deemed dividend with reference to the loan or advances taken in earlier years. Thus we hold that the deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) with reference to the amount of loan of ₹ 73,67,936/- is assessable in A.Y. 2001-02 to the extent of accumulated profit available on the date of loan taken by the assessee in the F.Y. 2000-01, and the accumulated profit which is found to be assessable as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee in the AY 2001-02, is to be reduced from the accumulated profit available as on 01.04.2001, and the balance shall be treated to be accumulated profit available to the be considered against the loans and advances taken by the assessee in the current F.Y 2001-02 relevant to the A.Y. 2002-03. As per assessee total amount of loan taken during the current financial year on various dates can only be treated to be the deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) to the extent of the accumulated profit that was available on the date on which amount of loan taken - There is no dispute in the proposition that the loan taken by the assessee can be regarded as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act only to the extent of accumulated profit available on the date when the loan was taken - we, therefore, restore this issue back to the file of the AO for walking out of the actual amount of loans or advances which could be treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in the year under consideration. The assessee shall submit his working before the AO regarding the actual amount of deemed dividend that could be taxed in the A.Y. 2001-02, and the actual amount of deemed dividend that is taxable in the current assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2002-03. Deemed dividend - Shareholding in loan granting company - Whether the assessee company is registered share holder of the shares of M/s. Atma Ram Construction Pvt. Ltd? - HELD THAT:- From the order of the AO, it is clear that Mr. C M Chaddha and legal heir of late Shri A R Chaddha had 50% of shares each in M/s. Atma Ram Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the register share holder of the shares of M/s. Atma Ram Construction Pvt. Ltd are Mr. C M Chaddha and the legal heir of late Shri A R Chaddha and not the present assessee company. Though Mr. C M Chaddha holds 32.5% shares in the assessee company and legal heir of late Shri A R Chaddha holds 56.49% shares in the assessee company, the assessee company cannot said to be a registered share holder and as well as a beneficiary. This issue is now well settled by the decision of Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd.[2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E], where it has been held that deemed dividend can be assessed in the hands of a registered share holder, and, who, at the same time, should be a beneficiary. Decided in favour of the assessee. Disallowance the deduction on house tax against the "Income From House Property"- why the payment should not be disallowed as the same was paid in the earlier assessment year? - as per AO, at one hand, the assessee was claiming the house tax payment on cheque clearing basis in so far as the payment was concerned, and, on the other claiming the house tax on the basis of dates on which cheques were given to municipal corporation, in to far as the payment is concerned, thus disallowed assessee's claim on account of house tax payment - CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order by observing that the date of payment is to be taken as the date on which the cheques were handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as it is settled principle of law that date of tendering of cheque is to be treated as date of payment, and not the clearing of cheque - HELD THAT:- On perusal of house tax payment receipt issued by Municipal Corporation of Delhi, it is clear that the assessee paid the amount on 31.03.2001 by cheque. These cheques were cleared on April 24, 2001. The cheques so issued by the assessee on 31.03.2001 were not bounced, but were cleared and debited in the assessee's account by the bank on 24.04.2001. The payment by cheque is, thus, to be treated as the actual payment made by the assessee - assessee has adopted a contradictory stand in claiming the house tax paid - we are in agreement with the orders of the authorities below in rejecting the assessee's claim on account of deduction on house tax paid by cheque on 30.03.2001. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee is rejected. Determination of ALV by computing notional interest - actual rent received - excess addition by adopting the notional interest @ 18% - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the Tribunal's order passed in A.Y. 1996-97 and 1991-99, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. In order for the A.Y. 1998-99, the Hon'ble Tribunal has directed the AO to accept the Annual Letting Value shown by the assessee in respect of M-block property, and the determination of ALV by computing notional interest was deleted. Addition on Annual Letting Value of the property - HELD THAT:- This issue has been decided in the case of CIT vs. A R Chadha and Co. India [2000 (9) TMI 63 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it has been held that the property in question did not belong to the assessee. We, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the assessee accordingly. Disallowance on deduction u/s. 80G - donation given by the assessee being the management committee share/maintenance grant to Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College- HELD THAT:- The certificate of Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College dated 05.11.2004, speaks about the approval granted to the University of Delhi and not to the Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College. Mere because Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College is affiliated to the University of Delhi for the purposes of providing degree and education to the students, it is not sufficient to say that Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College has also been approved for the purpose of section 80G. It is not the case of the assessee that Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College is owned and fully controlled by the University of Delhi. We do not find any basis to allow the deduction u/s. 80G to the present assessee, in respect of the donation given by the assessee being the management committee share/maintenance grant for the year 2001-02, to Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College. The orders of the authorities below on this issue are confirmed. Disallowance on ESI and PF u/s, 43B read with section 36(i)(va) - delayed payment - HELD THAT:- In the light of the decision of High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.N. Electronics Ltd [2008 (11) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Dharmendra Sharma [2007 (11) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT], we decide this issue in favour of the assessee with a direction to the AO to allow the deduction provided the payment has been made within the due date of filing of the return of income as applicable in the case of the assessee. Interest u/s. 234B and 234D is consequential and to be recomputed as per total income finally determined in the present case - Charging of interest u/s. 234D is not justified in as much as it has been held by the Tribunal, in the case of ITO vs. Ekta Promoters P. Ltd.[2008 (7) TMI 452 - ITAT DELHI-E] that provisions of section 234D are perspective in nature applicable from A.Y. 2004-05 and thus, not applicable to the present A.Y. 2002-03, which is under consideration. We, therefore, delete the charging of interest u/s. 234D. We order accordingly. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
|