9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1289 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) - transactions between the assessee and those companies giving trade advance - HELD THAT - Transactions in the ledger account of the assessee are in regular course of the business of purchase and sales of the shares/currency/derivatives/commodities etc. The Ld. DR could not controvert the above factual findings of the CIT(A) before us. In view of the above facts, CIT(A) is justified in holding that the transactions between the assessee and those companies are in the nature of trading transactions which are beyond the ambit of deemed dividend in view of the decisions of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT . CIT(A) has followed the above decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. CIT(A) has not committed any error in following the above decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transactions in the client ledger account are related to business activities. 2. Whether the recasting of the ledger account of the assessee by the AO is correct. 3. Whether the addition made on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is justified. Issue 1: Transactions in the Client Ledger Account Related to Business Activities The Revenue argued that the transactions in the client ledger account should be considered as loans or advances, making them liable for deemed dividend taxation under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. However, the CIT(A) determined that the transactions were in the nature of trade advances related to the business activities of the companies involved, which were engaged in brokerage of stock derivatives, currency, and commodities. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the transactions were part of regular business activities and not loans or advances. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd., which supports the exclusion of business transactions from deemed dividend provisions. Issue 2: Recasting of Ledger Account by the AO The AO had recast the ledger accounts of the assessee in the books of Jaypee Capital Services Ltd. (JCPL) and Futurz Next Services Ltd. (FNSL), treating certain cheque payments as loans or advances. The CIT(A) found this recasting incorrect, noting that the special auditor and the AO did not follow proper accounting norms and ignored the nature of the business transactions. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), highlighting that the method adopted by the AO did not reflect the true nature of the transactions, which were business-related and not loans or advances. Issue 3: Addition on Account of Deemed Dividend The AO had made an addition of ?7,88,99,522/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and ?2,57,25,602/- for the assessment year 2012-13, considering these amounts as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) deleted these additions, concluding that the transactions were business-related and thus outside the scope of deemed dividend provisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the transactions were in the regular course of business and supported by the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. Conclusion The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the transactions in the client ledger accounts were related to business activities and not loans or advances. Consequently, the additions made by the AO on account of deemed dividend were deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue for both assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions. The decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 17th December 2018.
|
