Skip to main content

No Deemed Dividend If Assessee is not a Shareholder in Payer Company

The ITAT in the case of Mr. Tushar Kothari vs. DCIT held that the provisions of deemed dividend would not attract if assessee was not a shareholder in the payer company. 

Instant appeal was preferred by the assessee against the impugned order of CIT (A), New Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11, wherein upheld the addition of Rs. 10 lakh as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While filing the return of income AO found that M/s Beehive Systems Private Limited had advanced Rs.10 lakh to its Director Tushar Kothari (assessee) who was holding 46% of the shares in the said company.

In reply, assessee told that he was not covered by the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act. 

However, AO added back the amount and the same was confirmed by the CIT (A). Further aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the ITAT and challenged the confirmation of addition contending that assessee is not a shareholder of M/s Beehive Technologies Private Limited from whom the impugned amount was received as an advance.

On counter-part Advocate for Revenue Amit Jain before the bench including B.P. Jain, (AM) and Sudhanshu Srivastava, (JM) clearly mentioned that transaction was routed through M/s Beehive Technologies Private Limited only to circumvent the provisions of section 2(22)(e). 

The tribunal bench after perusing the documents said that the impugned amount has not been given by M/s Beehive Systems Private Limited in which the assessee is a shareholder.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/no-deemed-dividend-if-assessee-is-not-a-shareholder-in-payer-company-itat/17052/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more