TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CIT vs Pravin Bhimsi Chheda [ 2014 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue holding that when the company got back its funds on the same day, it cannot fall into the definition of the deemed dividend. Same parity of reasoning and decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee holding that where the transaction entered into by two companies were business transactions; where both the parties were engaged in similar trade and activities; then it was not hit by the provisions of section 2(22)(e). The issue is similar wherein the business transaction was between two parties and the assessee had produced the bank statements during the course of hearing before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,01,489/ should be allowed for TDS demand created by the ITO, TDS Ward in case of Vardhman Automobiles (P) Ltd. 7. That no interest 234 B, 234C should have been levied. Without prejudice, the interest charged is excessive. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal in the case of related person i.e. Seema Devi Bansal in ITA No.6462/Del/2014 order dated 18.07.2018 relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 and Sh. Harish Kanwar in ITA No.529/Del/2017 order dated 18.10.2017 relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 4. The Ld.DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its on the date of advancing the loan was ₹ 9,65,100/- (upto previous year) + ₹ 49,793/- (profit during the year as per assessee s working = ₹ 10,14,893/-) and the same were added in the hands of the assessee. 7. The CIT(A) upheld the addition in the hands of the assessee against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Similar issues arose before the Tribunal with regard to related concerns, wherein it was noted that though advances were made but on the same date, there were transaction of receipt and payments itself by both the parties. The Tribunal thus addressed itself as to whether such transaction is covered in the definition of deemed dividend in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
