9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1998 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - assessee received a loan from company in which assessee is the beneficial owner of shares holding more than 10% of shares in the said company - HELD THAT - As find that the amounts have been indeed received by Barkley Retails Pvt. Ltd. which can be considered as a trade advance. Thus we find that, the observation of the CIT(A) that the advance was utilized for personal purpose and not for meeting the business expediency is based on wrong interpretation of the facts. Hence placing reliance on the judgment of Bagmare Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 403 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT addition made is hereby directed to be deleted. Disallowance u/s 14A - as argued During the year the assessee has not earned any exempt income - AO has disallowed an amount u/s 14A which the CIT(A) has confirmed - HELD THAT - As in the case of CIT Faridabad v. Lakhani Marketing INC 2014 (7) TMI 44 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT have held that the disallowance u/s 14A can be made only to the extent of receipt of dividend income. Since in the instant case the assessee has not earned any exempt income no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2 2. Addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000 under section 2(22)(e) of the Act 3. Addition of Rs. 11,82,978 under section 14A Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2 The Assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, contending that it was not a speaking order, erroneous, arbitrary, and opposed to law and facts. The Tribunal noted the grounds raised by the Assessee and proceeded to evaluate the validity of the order. Issue 2: Addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act The Assessee received a loan of Rs. 1,40,00,000 from M/s Acme Builders Pvt. Ltd., in which the Assessee held more than 10% shares. The Assessing Officer treated this advance as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as it was not in the normal course of business. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the money was not utilized for the purpose it was advanced. However, the Assessee argued that the advance was for acquiring a property in the name of the Assessee and was made for business expediency. The Tribunal, after examining the submissions and relevant documents, held that the advance was indeed a trade advance and utilized for business purposes. Relying on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition. Issue 3: Disallowance under section 14A The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 11,82,978 under section 14A, which the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed. However, the Assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. Citing a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance under section 14A can only be made to the extent of receipt of dividend income. Since the Assessee had not earned any exempt income, no disallowance was warranted. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, directing the deletion of the addition made under section 2(22)(e) and ruling out the disallowance under section 14A due to the absence of exempt income.
|
