Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1894 - ITAT AHMEDABADAddition u/s 2(22) (e) on account of deemed dividend - HELD THAT:- We find that Id. First Appellate Authority has recorded a finding of fact that assessee is not the share holder of both the companies. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E]. This decision of ITAT has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also held in case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. [2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the assessee should be a share holder in the lender company and such holding should be more than 10% of the voting "rights, only then Section 2(22)(e) would be attracted. As concurred with hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Daisy Packers (p.) Ltd.[2015 (7) TMI 253 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] we do not find any error in the order of Id. CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of appeal is rejected. Addition u/s 41(1) being cessation of liability - HELD THAT:- The assessee has shown sundry credit in the name of Sarovar Park Plaza, Mumbai which was carried forward from after year without any transaction from A.Y.2007-08. The assessee has shown outstanding balance of creditors account as liability in its books of account and such amount was not written back in Profit & Loss Account After taking in to consideration the decision in the case of CIT v/s. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara [2014 (2) TMI 794 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and in the case of CIT v/s. Nitin S. Garg [2012 (5) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as elabortaed in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) we are of the view that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that there was remission or cessation of liability relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08. Therefore we do not find any error in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Disallowance in respect of belated contribution to provident fund and ESIC u/s. 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- As the assessee has failed to make payment of the PF/ESIC received from the employees within the time allowed as per the PF/ESIC act. We have further noticed that hon’ble high court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (10) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction of such amount in computing the income referred to in section 28, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employees account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. In the light of the above facts and judicial findings, we do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance, therefore, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|