9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that, in respect of assessment year 2010-2011, the respondent assessee was found having received amounts/loans from and has paid various amounts to its group Concern, viz., M/s Royal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal, M/s Royal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Gwalior and M/s Samadhiya Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, during assessment year 2010-2011. The assessee in his return filed on 22/08/2012 declared his total income of Rs. 42,57,034/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. After notice under Section 142 of 1961 Act, a questionnaire was issued on 11.3.2004 calling upon the assessee to explain the receipts from related concern be not added to its income as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of 1961 Act. The assessee was also asked to provide details of the K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the assessee is not a registered nor a beneficial share holder of the concerned entity and ignoring the facts that there exist common share holding between the assessee and the concerned entity? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT Agra has erred in confirming the order Ld. CIT (A) and deleting the addition of Rs. 1,16,72,608/- made on account of deemed dividend, ignoring the fact that all the conditions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act are satisfied? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT committed an error in law is not appreciating the purport of provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Hence, the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the learned counsels for the Revenue on the basis of Sections 4, 5, 8, 14 and 56 of the Act would be of no avail. Simple answer to this argument is that such loan or advance, in the first place, is not an income. Such a loan or advance has to be returned by the recipient to the company, which has given the loan or advance." In view whereof, the deletion of Rs. 1,16,72,608/- made on account of deemed dividend cannot be faulted with. As regard to deletion of addition of Rs. 9,50,150/- on the finding that the expenditure was towards Keyman Insurance policy premium of the assessee Director, is an allowable expenses in view of the Circular by the CBDT No.38/2016, dated 22/11/2016. As we are not commended to any cogent material as woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
