Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Periwinkle Fashions P. Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- 8 (2) , Mumbai

2016 (3) TMI 313 - ITAT MUMBAI

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Asst. year 2010-11 wherein the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 323 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) was followed, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 26,21,073/- made in the hands of the assessee on the grou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cts of the case, briefly, are as under:- 2.1 The assessee company engaged in dealing all kinds of fashion products etc. filed its return of income for Asst. year 2011-12 on 21/09/2011 declaring income of ₹ 6,53,43,040/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dt. 20/01/2014, wherein the income of the assessee under normal provision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T(Appeals)-17, Mumbai, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- 1. Against addition of ₹ 2,621,073/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 2,621,073/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') u/ s 2(22)(e) of the Act ignoring the facts of the case. The CIT (A) should have appreciated that out of the said amount, ₹ 2,621,073/- represents repayment of expenses incurred b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act The CIT (A) has erred in upholding an addition of ₹ 50,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act made by the AO without considering the facts of the case. The CIT (A) should have appreciated that the said sum of ₹ 50,000/- represents mere repayment of expenses incurred by the appellant for and on behalf of Tainwala Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd (TTICPL) during the year under consideration. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that since no loan or advance has been received by the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 26,21,073/- made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) u/s 2 (22)(e) of the Act. It was submitted that this amount of ₹ 26,21,073/- represents repayment of expenses incurred by the assessee for and on behalf of Tainwala Holdings Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the said amount was not a loan or advance received by the assessee and therefore the provisions of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act would not apply. It was brought to the notice of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4.3.1 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial decision cited. The addition, which is the subject matter of appeal, is ₹ 26,70,073/-, comprising of two limbs, namely an amount of ₹ 26,21,073/- purported to have been received by M/s. Tainwala Holdings and a sum of ₹ 50,000/- representing amount received from Tainwala Trading and Investment Co. Ltd. The former addition is agitated by way of ground of appeal no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., (324 ITR 263) (Bom) held that since the assessee is not a shareholder in the said concern, M/s. Tainwala Holdings Pvt. Ltd., such amount could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee. At paras 5 to 7 of its order the co-ordinate bench held as under:- 5. With respect to the addition of ₹ 28,74,875/-, considered as deemed dividend under section 2 (22)(e) of the Act, it is contended th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version