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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more