Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2013 (7) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me 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) L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y 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

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f 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

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant 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 un....