Skip to main content

Amount given as Security for Purchase of Flat cannot be treated as ‘Deemed Dividend

In the case of DCIT vs. Smt. Sriram Satyavathi, Visakhapatnam bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) recently held that amount given as security for purchase of flat cannot be treated as ‘deemed dividend’ for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 

Assessee in the present case is an individual duly filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year.  During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) has conducted a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 

It was found during the course of search that a promissory note executed in favour of the assessee which representing Vijetha Foundation and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs. However the assessee was called for explanation as to why the loan given to M/s. Vijetha Constructions should not be brought to tax under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. In response the assessee explained that M/s. First Tek Pvt. Ltd. had advanced a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs to M/s. Vijetha Foundation and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property and as a precautionary measure, a pro note was executed in favour of the assessee by M/s. Vijetha Constructions and no monetary transaction was exchanged between the assessee and M/s. Vijetha Constructions in respect of Rs. 35 lakhs. 

But the AO refused to accept assessee’s submission and he was of the opinion that the said sum required to be brought to tax as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, and accordingly completed assessment by making an addition of Rs.35 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that the aforementioned transactions were purely sale and purchase transactions but not the finance transactions or any loan to hold the payment as a deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the authority revenue was on appeal before the tribunal.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/amount-given-security-purchase-flat-treated-deemed-dividend-itat/16647/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more