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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more