9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Jyoti Sagar, who is one of the more than 20% beneficial shareholding in the assessee company, whereas the "Annual report‟ of the assessee company itself states that Mr. Jyoti Sagar holds 27% of shareholding in the assessee company. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to delete addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the advance of Rs. 1,72,10,898/- received from GFMPL despite the fat that all the conditions stipulated for treating an advance from the company as deemed dividend as laid down in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act has been fulfilled in this case. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is in the business of production, editing and dubbing of T.V Serials and films had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2013-14 on 30.09.2013, dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee that as the production of the serial was delayed, therefore, it had paid interest on the advance received from the said concern. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee was not inclined to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O. Insofar the shareholding pattern of Mr. Jyoti Sagar was concerned, the CIT(A) did find favour with the claim of the assessee that the A.O was not justified in clubbing the shareholdings of Shri. Jyoti Sagar in his individual capacity with his shareholding as an executor of the Estate of Late Subhash Sagar. It was observed by the CIT(A) that inquiries made by the A.O with M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd., had revealed, that the assessee company was not holding any shares in the said company. Also, it was observed by the CIT(A) that neither of the shareholder of M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. having a shareholding of not less than 10% was simultaneously having a shareholding of not less than 20% in the assessee company. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the CIT(A) concluded that as neither of the shareholders of the aforesaid lender companies were having a substantial shareholding of not less than 20% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. Authorised representative (for short "A.R‟) for the assessee Shri. K. Gopal, that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assesses own case for A.Y 2012-13 i.e ACIT-16(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s Sagar Arts Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 4762/Mum/2016), dated 11.07.2018. (copy placed on record). Before adverting any further, it would be pertinent to point out, that in the present appeal before us the revenue has only assailed the order of the CIT(A) to the extent he had vacated the addition of Rs. 8,50,80,367/- made by the A.O u/s 2(22)(e) in respect of the amount that was received by the assessee from M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, we confine ourselves to the issue as had been raised by the revenue in the present appeal before us. 6. Admittedly, as observed by us hereinabove, the assessee company is not a shareholder in M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. It is the claim of the revenue, that a shareholder of M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd viz. Mr.Jyoti Sagar (holding 21.06% shares) was also having substantial shareholding of 26.94% in the assessee company viz. M/s Sagar Arts Pvt. Ltd.. On the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee company and M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. As a matter of fact, the revenue even in the course of the proceedings before us had failed to place on record any irrefutable material which would evidence that the holding of Shri. Jyoti Sagar in M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee company, was not less than 10% and 20%, respectively. Apart there from, we are in concurrence with the view taken by the CIT(A), that the amount received by the assessee company from M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd, being in the nature of an inter-corporate deposit could not have been brought within the realm of the definition of "deemed dividend‟ under Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In fact, we find that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for the immediately preceding year viz. A.Y 2012-13 had deleted the addition which was made by the A.O by treating the amount received by the assessee from M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. as "deemed dividend‟ u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, for the reason, that, none of the shareholders of the assessee company holding more than 20% of its shareholding were simultaneously holding more than 10% interest in M/s Gayatr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
