Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 662 - AT - Income TaxSearch and seizure - only the regular books of accounts found were seized during the course of search and, therefore, the AO ought not to have proceeded to invoke the provisions of s.153C of the Act and that the ld. CIT (A) had also grossly erred in out-rightly rejecting the case laws on which the assessee had placed strong reliance as contended by AR - As rightly highlighted by the ld. CIT (A), the requirement of handing over the books of account to the AO having jurisdiction over the other person did not arise in the case on hand for a simple reason that the same AO who was having jurisdiction over the person searched u/s 132 of the Act i.e., Bagmane Developers Pvt. Ltd. and also the other person i.e., the assessee and, as such, there was no need of handing over the books of accounts/documents seized to any other AO - Decided against the assessee Regarding deemed dividend - The reasoning of the AO, in brief, was that the provisions of sec.2 (22)(e) are squarely applicable to any 'loans and advances'. The only exception being advances made in course of business by a company substantially engaged in money lending - The entire events, to put it in a nut-shell, make explicitly clear that the intention of the assessee was to earn profits from the above venture and basically on a commercial exigency - it is clear that sub-clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Act, which is parimateria with clause (e) of section 2(6A) of the 1922 Act, plainly seeks to bring within the tax net accumulated profits which are distributed by closely held companies to its shareholders in the form of loans - AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of s.2 (22)(e) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years under dispute - Decided in favor of the assessee
|