Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1655 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - whether the loan/advance received by the assessee company from these group companies could be taxed in its hand as "deemed dividend"? - Held that:- It is fact on record that the loans and advances are not received by the assessee company on behalf or for the individual benefit of any shareholder. All the judgements cited at Bar suggests that loans/advances can be taxed as deemed dividend U/S 2(22)(e) in the hands of the registered or beneficial shareholder only. No contrary decision was brought to our knowledge. As far case laws, cited by the Ld DR, are concerned it would be suffice to say that they do not address the specific issue of treating receipt of an advance/loan as deemed dividend in the hands of the non-shareholder recipient which is the core dispute in the present case. As relying on the case of Bhaumik Colours Pvt Ltd (2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E) we have upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The issue in dispute as to applicability of section 2(22)(e) to a non-shareholder recipient of loan / advance, is now stands settled, in case of CIT, Delhi-II vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company [2017 (10) TMI 1279 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on account of keyman issuance policy - assessee failed to produce any admissible evidence during the course of assessment proceedings - Held that:- The policy document was fully explanatory as “key man policy (APB -26). The policy holder was the assessee company while the life assured is that of Shri Hari Kant Samodhiya, its MD. The premium is allowed as business expenditure as per CBDT Circular No. 38/2016 dated 22nd November 2016. In view of the above, we observe that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are in conformity with the facts of the case which are not controverted by ld. DR. The order of the CIT(A) is confirmed on this issue accordingly. - Decided against revenue
|