9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) dated 24.8.12, raising following question for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the amount of Rs.35,50,000/- received from Shripad Conchem Pvt. Ltd. and Shripad Construction, and Rs.1,02,830/- accumulated profit from Eco System Management Service (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in the nature of production advance. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected such a theory and taxed the said amount as noted above. The assessee thereupon approached the appellate Commissioner. The CIT(Appeals), noted that the assessee was maintaining two separate accounts. One was for the purpose of financial transactions and other account was for business transactions. During the year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act on loan of Rs.35,50,000/- but the appellant has established that these are business transactions. The appellant sold has established that these are business transactions. The appellant sold goods of Rs.12,15,513/- to M/s.Shripat Conchem P. Ltd and Rs.35,75,975 to M/s.Shripat Construction division of M/s.Shripat Conchem P. Ltd. There were two accounts maintained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had sold goods and had established that the amounts involved business transactions. Such amounts, therefore, cannot be categorized as loan as envisaged under section 2(22)(3) of the Act. Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as is well known, treats certain loan or advance made by the company to a person who is the beneficial owner of the shares holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
