Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (2) TMI 858

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... closed its business and even if the A.O’s contention is acepted that the interest income was assessable as income from other sources, the interest payment would be allowable as deduction u/s. 57 of the Act and other expenses debited in P&L A/c would be allowable as business loss. In that situation also, there would be no effect on the total income.- Decided against revenue. Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Tribunal deleted addition - Held that:- As assessee did not dispute that the Karta is a member of the HUF which has taken the loan from the Company and, therefore, the case is squarely within the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. - Decided in favour of revenue. - ITAT No. 73 of 2014 AND G.A. No. 1881 of 2014 - - - D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition made in respect of interest payment of ₹ 7,43,926/- ? iv) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the consolidated order dated January 27, 2014 passed by the learned Tribunal is perverse and ought to be set aside ? v) The consolidated order dated January 27, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is otherwise erroneous on facts and/or in law? Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 relate to deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The learned Tribunal has concurred with the following views of the CIT (Appeal). From assessment order it is apparent that the A.O. himself has computed the interest income under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd 2 are concerned, Mr. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee did not dispute that the Karta is a member of the HUF which has taken the loan from the Company and, therefore, the case is squarely within the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which reads as follows : any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) (made after the 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates