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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more