TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order. 2. The above mentioned appeals emanate from the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Hyderabad against the orders u/s 201(1) and 201(lA) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer held that the amount paid by Jayadarsini Housing Pvt. Ltd., to the following persons represent the income within the meaning of Sec.2(22)( e) of the I.T. Act. 1) Sri Gorla Sai Babu, Managing Director 2) Smt. Gorla Sailaja, Director 3) Jayadarshini Properties Pvt. Ltd., 3. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee while paying the amounts had to deduct the tax at source but did not do so and, therefore, charged the tax u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(lA) of the I.T. Act. The amounts paid by the assessee to vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 260 04. 2008-09 57,18,994 18,35,501 75,54,495 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the amounts paid to Sri Gorla Saibabu and Smt. Gorla Sailaja would amount to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act and whereas in respect of Jayadarshini Properties Pvt. Ltd., the learned CIT (Appeals) found that the said concern is not a shareholder of the assessee company and, therefore, held that the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) have no application. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), both the department and the assessee filed appeals before the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the department. As the Hon'ble Tribunal in the order in ITA No.1044 , 1045, 1046 1109 /H/ 11 in the case of G. Saibabu and ITA No.1047, 1107, 1048 1108/H/ 11 in the case of Smt. G. Sailaja, dated 31.7.2013 is of the view that the amount received by the directors does not represent deemed dividend within the meaning of Sec.2(22)(e) and hence the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 8. ITA.No. 1344 to 1347/Hyd/2011 A.Ys. 2005-2006 to 200809 (Revenue s appeals) : The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the recipients are not the shareholders and hence the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) have no application. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing, the learned Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
