9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dt. 20/01/2014, wherein the income of the assessee under normal provisions was determined at Rs. 6,91,64,110/- in view of an addition of Rs. 38,21,073/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The 'book profits' u/s 115JB of the Act were accepted as returned by the assessee at Rs. 7,02,79,567/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dt. 20/01/2014 for Asst. year 2011-12, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(AppealsO-17, Mumbai. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide order dt. 19/05/2014. 3. Being aggrieved wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant from TTICPL during the year, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. The appellant humbly prays that the impugned addition made by the CIT (A) be deleted, in the interest of natural justice. 3. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend and/or supplement any ground or grounds, if necessary, at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Ground No. 1 - Addition of Rs. 26, 21,073/- as deemed dividend u/s 2 (22) (e) of the Act. 4.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 26,21,073/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') u/s 2 (22)(e) of the Act. It was submitted that this amount of Rs. 26,21,073/- represents repayment of expenses incurred by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f deemed dividend u/s 2 (22)(e) of the Act was considered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Asst. year 2010-11. In its order in ITA No. 388/Mum/2014 dt. 21/08/2015, the co-ordinate bench following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., (324 ITR 263) (Bom) held that since the assessee is not a shareholder in the said concern, M/s. Tainwala Holdings Pvt. Ltd., such amount could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee. At paras 5 to 7 of its order the co-ordinate bench held as under:- 5. With respect to the addition of Rs. 28,74,875/-, considered as 'deemed dividend' under section 2 (22)(e) of the Act, it is contended that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was followed, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 26,21,073/- made in the hands of the assessee on the ground that such dividend could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee as it was not a shareholder in M/s. Tainwala Holdings Pvt. Ltd.. Ground of appeal at Sr. No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 5. Ground No: 2 in respect of the addition of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 2 (22)(e) of the Act was not pressed by the Ld. AR for the assessee. In view of this ground not being pressed, it is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 6. Ground No: 3 is general in nature and therefore no adjudication is called for thereon. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
