9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil H. Yadav holding 22.09% & 51.14% of shares respectively and these two people are holding 12.8% and 24.60% shares in the sister company Sai Jyoti Fashions Pvt. Ltd. This goes to show that the loan taker company i.e. the assessee company is neither a registered shareholder nor the beneficiary shareholder of loan giving company and, therefore, as per this decision of Special bench of the Tribunal, the amount received by the assessee company as loan from Sai Jyoti Fashions Pvt. Ltd. cannot be assessed as deemed dividend in the hands of this assessee company by invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961. - I.T.A. No.813/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2012 - Shri G. C. GUPTA, and Shri A. K. GARODIA, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order. The basic thrust of the argument of the appellant is that the balance amount of Rs.1,3771,6487- was purely a deposit account and not in nature of loans advances. It was argued that loans advances are different than deposit as per ratio of Madras High Court in case of A.M. Shamssuddin and Delhi High Court in ease of Baidyanath Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. However admittedly the Delhi High Court judgment was in respect of 276E and 269T. The appellant has also referred to an Interest Tax Act case of Utkarsh Fincap Pvt. Ltd. Vs. I TO (2006) 101 TTJ (Ahd) 0210 - ITAT where it was held that interest on Inter Corporate Deposits unless they clearly fell within the meaning of "interest on" loans and advances'' would not be taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r company, Thus the amount being in nature of loan were treated as deemed dividend. But since the accumulated profit available were only to the limit of Rs.83,29,438/- of the sister company i.e. Sai Jyoti Fashions Pvt. Ltd., the A.O. made the addition only to that extent which is under dispute. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but without success and now, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. hat this issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Special bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT Vs Bhomik Colour Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 118 ITD 01 (SB) (Mum.). He also submitted copy of the Tribunal decision rendered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the assessee to buy 9% of RBI bonds in financial year 1999-2000. It was held by Hon ble Apex Court that the tribunal was right in holding that the two firms were used as conduits by the assessee. It is also observed by the Hon ble Apex Court that it is not in dispute that assessee has more than 10% of voting power in MKS during the block period. It is further noted by the Hon ble Apex Court that it is not in dispute that the assessee had substantial interest of above 16% in MKF. In that case, loan was given by MKS and in that case, assessee was having more than 10% of voting power in MKS whereas in the present case, the loan was given by Sai Jyoti Fashion Pvt. Ltd and the assessee company is not having any shareholding and voting power in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
