9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 479 - HC - Income TaxDeemed dividend - whether Tribunal could not have applied section 2(22)(e)(ii) because, loans and advances were obtained from M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd. but money lending was not a substantial part of the business of that company? - Held that - Tribunal referred to the assessment order in the case of M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd. for the year under consideration, namely 2006-07, wherein the nature of the business of that company was indicated as finance. The company continued in the business of short term finance of idle funds. M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd. During the year under consideration, earned interest income to the tune of ₹ 9,16,088/- which constituted about 70% of its total business income amounting to ₹ 13,04,088/-. The maximum amount of loan advanced by the company during the year under consideration was to the tune of ₹ 95,45,000/-. That constituted 32% of the total funds available with the said company. In these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that that the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd. The addition made by the assessing officer and sustained by the Commissioner was not valid and legal, particularly in the background facts. In the light of the undisputed factual position, we are of the view that the Tribunal s order is correct and reliance placed by it on Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Parle Plastics Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 726 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT is not misplaced. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A - ITAT deleted addition - Held that - This question is covered against the revenue by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , In any event, direction to recompute the disallowance in the light of this judgment does not give rise to a substantial question of law - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to ITAT order for AY 2006-07; Interpretation of section 2(22)(e)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961; Whether loans from M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd. constitute deemed dividend; Business nature of M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd.; Tribunal's decision on the substantial part of lending money in M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd.; Applicability of Division Bench judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT. Analysis: The appeal before the Bombay High Court challenged the ITAT order for the assessment year 2006-07. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of section 2(22)(e)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning whether loans obtained from M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd. should be treated as deemed dividend. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in applying this provision as money lending was not a substantial part of M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd.'s business. The Commissioner had noted that the company primarily advanced loans to one entity and its employees, indicating that the exclusionary clause was not applicable. Upon review, the High Court examined the nature of M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd.'s business. It was observed that the company was not primarily engaged in lending money, but rather in short-term finance activities. The Tribunal considered various factors, including the proportion of interest income to total business income and the percentage of funds allocated for loans. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that lending money constituted a substantial part of M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd.'s business, supporting the decision to reject the addition made by the assessing officer and upheld by the Commissioner. Regarding a specific question (B) raised in the appeal, the High Court referenced a Division Bench judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which was deemed unfavorable to the revenue. The Court determined that the direction to recompute the disallowance based on this judgment did not present a substantial question of law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the impugned order was not perverse and the factual findings aligned with the evidence on record, thereby not warranting any substantial legal questions to be raised. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the ITAT decision, emphasizing the correct application of the law in interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the factual assessment of M/s. JMC Securities Pvt. Ltd.'s business activities. The judgment also highlighted the relevance of precedent judgments in guiding the resolution of tax disputes.
|
