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

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