Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 708 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - assessee had received loan from Ramsan Communications Ltd. and the receipt of loan was considered as deemed dividend and added to the income u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (8) TMI 1881 - ITAT DELHI] Similar transaction was accepted as commercial transaction between the parties in earlier as well as subsequent years in which interest has also been paid and no adverse inference have been drawn against the assessee, therefore, rule of consistency do apply with the income proceedings and the AO without bringing any further evidence against the assessee should not have taken a different view against the assessee. The decisions relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the assessee squarely apply to the facts and the circumstances of the case. The assessee produce sufficient evidence on the record to justify that it was a commercial transaction between the parties not only in assessment year under appeal but in preceding and subsequent years, therefore, the authorities below were not justified in invoking provision of section 2 (22) (e) of the IT Act against the assessee for making the addition. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - scope of amendment of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) remitted the issue to AO to verify the issue in line with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein has held that the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) to be declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of Section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act 2014. It has further held that as long as the payee has filed the return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income, the assessee would not be treated as a person in default. Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). In such a situation, we find no reason with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.
|