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

2017 (4) TMI 872

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t received by the assessee from the said company and in this regard, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) There is no Board Resolution passed by the company to give money to the assessee. Board of Directors of the amalgamated company had a Board meeting on 30.06.2010 approving the scheme of amalgamation. The petition of amalgamation was dated 23.07.2010. Hence, the statement of the assessee is that the balance in the books of account of M/s.Mind Ware Pvt Ltd., was to be considered have no merit. More so, the balance appeared in the books of account of M/s.Chroma Print India Pvt Ltd. was before filing the amalgamation petition dt.23.07.2010. Being so, this argument cannot hold any merit. This argument is also rej .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on, the assessee, the Managing Director of the company, M/s.Chroma Print India Pvt Ltd., has received an amount of ₹ 76,47,999/- on various dates. It is also noted by the AO that out of this, a sum of ₹ 11,51,373/- on account of rent and ₹ 9,33,600/- on account of salary from M/s.Chroma Print India Pvt Ltd., ₹ 2,98,180/- on account of commission payments. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer considered the balance amount of ₹ 52,64,846/- for disallowance u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act as Deemed Dividend . Aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 03.11.2014 confirmed the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons reported in 223 ITR 809(SC). He also submitted that for the purpose of quantification of deemed dividend, debit and credit entry not to be considered individually and it shall be on cumulative manner. For this purpose he relied on the order of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Smt. G.Sreevidya in (2012) 138 ITD 427, in ACIT Vs. Shri Ravikant Choudhary in ITA No.768/Mds./2012 CO No.93/Mds./2012 for assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 17.12.2012. He also relied on the judgement of Kolkatta High Court in Pradip Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT in (2011) 338 ITR 538(Cal.) for the proposition that the arrangement between the assessee and the company in question is commercial expediency wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere exist in commercial expedience to grant such a huge amount to the assessee. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the provisions section 2(22)(e) of the Act is applicable to the amount received by the assessee from the said company and in this regard, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) . The various case laws relying by the ld.A.R have no application to the facts of the case. As in this case, there is no Board Resolution passed by the company to give money to the assessee. Further, ld.A.R made a plea that under the scheme of amalgamation M/s.Mind Ware Pvt Ltd., was amalgamated with M/s.Chroma Print India Pvt Ltd. appointment date was 01.04.2009. The balancein the name of assessee on the said date in the books .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. in [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein held that: 12. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is no .....

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