9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Appellant by:- Shri. Baran Kumar, CA Respondent by:-Shri. Dr. B.R.R.Kumar, CIT(DR) ORDER PER T.S.KAPOOR, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 12-08-2010. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee are as under:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the adition of advance salary of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by Learned Assessing Officer u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being deemed dividend. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute or withdraw any of the Grounds of the Appeal on or before the date of disposal of the appeal. 3. The order is against the law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) That the advance was basically a payment of salary in advance and against the provision of services and not in the nature of loan. So the question of deemed dividend does not arise. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Mumbai High Court in the case of NH Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT 11 SOT 302. (iv) That AO has erroneously mentioned that the assessee has taken a loan while the amount was merely taken in advance towards salary in the normal course of business. (v) That AO purely on the basis of doubts, suspicious, surmises has proceeded to treat the salary drawn in advance as loan and thus deemed dividend in the hands of assessee. Reliance was also further placed on the following judgements:- * ITAT No. 2131/Del/2007 September 12, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced in the case of Shyama Charan Gupta Vs. 377 ITR 511 wherein the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has held that advance towards salary which was due to the petitioner and was credited to his account every month could not be treated as deemed dividend. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunil Sethi wherein it was held that the advance which had been given by company to assessee who was the director in the said company was neither a loan nor was it for individual benefit of the said assessee and further held such advance was in the nature of imprest and same could not be treated as deemed dividend under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e)of the Act. The Ld. DR on the other hand, reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
