9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the nature of receipt partakes the character of share application money, it cannot be treated as loan/advance. He further observed that at the time of receipt of money the intention was to invest in shares of the appellant company and hence the nature of the receipt was not that of loan or advance. He further observed that only loans and advances can be considered as deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) and accordingly held when what has been received as share application money on which there is no dispute, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not attracted and hence deleted the addition made by the AO. CIT(A) on this account reject the grounds taken by the Revenue and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. - ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see company in view of the decision in Ardee Finvest (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (2001) 70 TTJ Del 378. However, the AO did not accept the assessee s submissions. He observed that since this amount was shown under the head current liability, clearly this amount is in the nature of loan/advances to the assessee-company and hence condition for invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are satisfied and accordingly, the AO added Rs.16,60,652/- as deemed dividend income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that it is agreed by the AO that the sums received are towards share application money and there is no disagreement on this aspect. He further observed that when the nature of receipt partakes the character of share applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown in the balance sheet as current liabilities and in support he placed on record Form of balance sheet as per Schedule-VI (Part-I) of the Companies Act. In the light of the above he submits that the assessee has rightly treated the share application money under the head loans/advances but in any case it was not a loan or advance. The reliance was also placed on the decision (a) CIT V/s Visisth Chay Vypapar Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 157 (Del) and (b) CIT V/s Integrated Finance Co. Ltd .(2011) 339 ITR 391(Mad) for the proposition that it is not loan/advances to the assessee company. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) be upheld. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
