TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 1545 - ITAT DELHI] relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 and Sh. Harish Kanwar [ 2017 (10) TMI 997 - ITAT DELHI] relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. We have also decided similar issue in Surbhi Jain vs ITO [ 2020 (5) TMI 533 - ITAT DELHI] relating to Assessment Year 2011-12, applying the ratio laid down by Hon ble Bombay High Court in Praveen Bhimsi Chheda Shivsadan vs DCIT [ 2011 (5) TMI 857 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that under similar circumstances, it was not case of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Applying the said parity of reasoning and we hold that the assessee cannot held to be in default u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and there is no merit in raising the demand u/s 201(1) and charging interest u/s 201(1A). Penalty u/s 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Surbhi Jain. 5. That no interest 201(1A) should have been levied, without prejudice, the interest charged is excessive. 3. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee company had advance ₹ 70 lakhs to its associated concerns namely Arihant Agency which was treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits (₹ 10,14,893/-), as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee had not deducted tax at source on deemed dividend of ₹ 10,14,893/- and Assessing Officer held the assessee to be in default u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act and raised demand of ₹ 1,46,149/-. The CIT(A) upheld the said order of the AO against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till lying in firm as director s capital and profits. therefore, no part of borrowed funds was diverted in making interest free advance. 6. We find that the issue of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of similar transaction being made wherein the transaction of receipt and payment were on the same date itself by both the parties, arose before the Tribunal in series of cases 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. We have also decided similar issue in Surbhi Jain vs ITO in ITA No.3993/Del/2015 vide order dated 14.05.2020 relating to Assessment Year 2011- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
