TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Vipul Joshi For the Respondent :Shri Premand J ORDER Per G.S. Pannu, AM: The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai dated 28/10/2013, which in-turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 11/12/2012 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) pertaining to assessment year 2003-04. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Against addition of ₹ 905,515/- as deemed dividend U/S 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f during the year and as such, there is no undue advantage or benefit. The CIT (A) should have appreciated that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted as no loan or advance has been received by the appellant from THPL during the year. (ii) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additions u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act should be restricted to the accumulated profits as on the date of receipt of loan/advance and not as at 31st March 2010. The appellant humbly prays that the impugned addition made by the CIT(A) be deleted, in the interest of natural justice. 2. The appellant before us is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter-alia, engaged in the business of invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2)(e) of the Act, it is contended that the said addition is not tenable in view of the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom). It is submitted that the said amount is purported to have been received from M/s. Tainwala Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and since assessee was not a shareholder in the said concern, such amount could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee company following the ratio of the judgment in the case CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.(supra). 6. On this aspect, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has not disputed the factual matrix brought out by Ld. Representative for the assessee. 7. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the plea of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
