TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be categorized as loan or advance, question of application of section 2(22)(e) would not arise - Decided in favour of assessee. Tribunal in the impugned judgment has made a reference to a decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sai Jyoti & Printing Ltd [2012 (8) TMI 36 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD]. The Tribunal has also reproduced a portion of that judgment. We are of the opinion that the said decision has no bearing in the present appeal. This order, therefore, would have no effect on the Revenues appeal against such order, which we are informed has been admitted - Tax Appeal No. 208 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2013 - AKIL KURESHI AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ. For the Appellant : Manav A. Mehta. For the Respondent : None. PER : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was maintaining two separate accounts. One was for the purpose of financial transactions and other account was for business transactions. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold goods of Rs.12.15 lacs to Shripad Conchem Pvt. Ltd and Rs.35.75 lacs to Shripad Construction. Separate accounts for the sale were maintained. As and when the assessee company needed the funds, it obtained amount on various dates. The assessee company was manufacturing concrete mix and major part of the goods were sold to the said companies. CIT (Appeals), therefore, allowed the assessees appeal and reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer. The Revenue, thereupon, approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, therefore, cannot be categorized as loan as envisaged under section 2(22)(3) of the Act. Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as is well known, treats certain loan or advance made by the company to a person who is the beneficial owner of the shares holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power under certain circumstances to be the deemed dividend. In the present case, when the authorities found that the amount in question cannot be categorized as loan or advance, question of application of section 2(22)(e) would not arise. Before closing, we may clarify that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has made a reference to a decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sai Jyoti Printing Ltd. The Tribunal has also reproduced a porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
