Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 434 - ITAT HYDERABADDeemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) – Amount received by assessee as loans to be treated as deemed dividend or not – Held that:- Assessee rightly contended that the payment made by a company, which is covered by the provisions of S.2(22)(e), can be treated as deemed dividend only to the extent to which such company possesses accumulated profits, and this position clearly evident from the provisions of S.2(22)(e) - the claim of the assessee that M/s. Speed Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. did not possess any accumulated profits at the time of advancing the amount to the assessee has not been verified either by the AO or by the CIT(A) although such claim was specifically made in the submissions made before the AO and a specific ground to this effect was also raised by the assessee in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) – thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for verification of the claim of the assessee as regards non-availability of any accumulated profits in the case of M/s. Speed Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of amount as deemed dividend – Held that:- Out of the total loan amount, a sum of ₹ 17 lakhs was received by the assessee and the addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) can be made in the case of the assessee only to the extent of ₹ 10 lakhs, being the amount received during the year – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification of claim of assessee – Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of gross receipts relating to business of interior design works – Held that:- Assessee has not been able to rebut or controvert the findings of fact recorded by the AO as well as the CIT(A) to dispute the genuineness of his claim of having carried on the business of interior designing work - He has also not been able to produce any evidence whatsoever to establish that any such business was actually carried on by him or any of the expenditure claimed in relation to the said business was actually incurred by him – thus, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the AO in treating the claim of the assessee of having carried on the business of interior designing work as bogus or false – Decided against assessee. Reimbursement of conveyance expenses – Held that:- The assessee has submitted that the amount received by the assessee towards reimbursement of conveyance expenses actually incurred is exempt u/s 10(14)(i) - any special allowance or benefit not being in the nature of perquisite, specifically granted to meet expense wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for in the performance of the duty of an office or employment of profit, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose, is exempt from tax - There is no evidence brought on record by the assessee to show that any special allowance was specifically granted to the assessee by the employer to meet conveyance expense wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of his duty - There is also no evidence placed on record before us to show that the amount in question claimed to be received by the assessee on account of conveyance allowance was actually incurred for such purpose - In the absence of details and evidence, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted that the amount is exempt from tax u/s 10(14)(i) – Decided against assessee.
|