Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 810 - HC - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - assessee had obtained a loan from M/s. Dewas Soya Ltd. in which assessee held 38.31% shares - proof that the lending company was the one of which public was substantially interested - Held that:- Assessing Officer's observation to the effect that the assesse has procured funds from M/s.Dewas Soya Ltd in which the assessee had 38.31% shares was without basis and therefore, the amount of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- could not have been treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Tribunal did not find any infirmity with the order of CIT (A) which it found was a well reasoned order. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not attracted. We find nothing wrong in the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect. Even otherwise the finding that the company was recipient company could not be held to be public limited company on the basis that the assessee had 38.31% shares cannot be accepted. The assessee of a limited company was entitled to hold shares of other corporate entities and holding of 38.31% shares of M/s. Dewas Soya Ltd will not by itself constitute reason enough to hold that the company is not a public limited company or the company in which public are not substantially interested in. The company M/s. Dewas Soya Ltd. and the assessee were apparently part of the same group. There is nothing on record to suggest that the company was privately held merely because the assessee held 38.31% shares. The Tribunal as the last fact finding Court has clearly opined that the company was one in which the public was substantially interested. In the circumstances the question nos.1 and 2 as proposed will not construe substantial questions of law that requires consideration by the Court. Addition made on account of employees' contribution as the provident fund - Held that:- The assessee was found to have deposited the amount within grace period and hence there is no substance in the grievance of the Revenue. Thus even the third question does not require any further consideration.
|