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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more