TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery at his premises to enable the assessee to do job work for the company, at 10% below the prevailing market rate. The Assessing Officer did not doubt this agreement or these facts. The assessee having proved a tangible business expediency between the assessee and the company, the question of invoking Section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not arise. ITAT has after considering these facts rightly held that as the assessee has proved business expediency the advance is not covered by Section 2(22) (e) of the Act. We find no reason whether in law or in fact to interfere with these findings of facts, which are neither perverse nor arbitrary. - Decided against the revenue. - ITA NO.5,62,64 OF 2014 AND ITA NO. 92, 323 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 2-2-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the deletion of addition of ₹ 4,87,66,131/- made by the A.O. under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Counsel for the assessee submits that a perusal of the material on record particularly facts referred to by the Assessing Officer proves business expediency. The amount advanced, therefore, could not have been treated as dividend under Section 2(22) (e) of the Act. The finding recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee after referring to relevant facts is neither perverse nor arbitrary and therefore, may be affirmed. Counsel for the appellant further submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advances were received by the assessee in the normal course of business as a matter of fact of business expediency in which provisions of Section 2(22) (e) are not applicable. As per the ratio relied ITA No. 5 of 2014 -5- before us, even if the business of the lender company is not that of money lending, the amount advanced by it to its shareholders, otherwise in the course of business etc. would go out of the purview of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT V Shri Raj Kumar in ITA No.1130/2007, it has been held that the word 'advance' which appears in the company of the word 'loan' for the provisions of Section 2(22)(e), could only mean such advance which carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing facility was situated in a remote area and was beset with labour problems and erratic supply of electricity. The Company, therefore, entered into an agreement, dated 1.8.2007 with the assessee to install plant and machinery at his premises to enable the assessee to do job work for the company, at 10% below the prevailing market rate. The Assessing Officer did not doubt this agreement or these facts. The assessee having proved a tangible business expediency between the assessee and the company, the question of invoking Section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not arise. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has after considering these facts rightly held that as the assessee has proved business expediency the advance is not covered by Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
