9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, the Delhi High Court found that the Container Freight Stations are ‘infrastructure facility’ within the meaning of ‘Inland Ports’. The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd(supra), directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Since the Delhi High Court considered similar issue and found that Container Freight Station is an ‘infrastructure facility’ and the same would fall within the definition of ‘Inland Port’, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority - Decided in favour of assessee Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22) - Held that:- In case the advance/loan was advanced for the benefit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Department : Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT For the Assessee : Shri A.S Sriraman, Advocate ORDER Per N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, dated 19.9.2014, for assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11. The assessee has also filed cross objection against the very same order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, we heard both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee together and dispose of the same by this common order. 2. The first issue arises for consideration is deduction u/s 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was classified under any other public facility , therefore, the intention of the Board was not to treat the Container Freight Station as inland port for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 3. Referring to the order of the CIT(A), the ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) by following his own order in assessee s own case for assessment year 2009-10, allowed the claim of the assessee. Referring to the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10 in assessee s own case, the ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) by referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs ACIT, 346 ITR 140, allowed the claim of the assessee. According to the ld. DR, the Revenue has already fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Container Freight Station is an infrastructure facility and the same would fall within the definition of Inland Port , this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 6. The next issue arises for consideration is addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. This issue arises for consideration for assessment year 2007-08. 7. Dr.B. Nischal, ld. DR submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee received capital advance of ₹ 1,09,50,000/- from M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd. which has common shareholders who have substantial interest in the assessee-company. The common shareholders are Shri Xavier Britto and Smt. Vim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the assessee-company. 8. On the contrary, Shri A.S Sriraman, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the business relationship between the assessee-company and M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd. is not disputed by the Revenue. The advance was received by the assessee only for business activity and not for any other purpose. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee-company is not a shareholder in M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd., therefore, even assuming that the capital advance received by the assessee is a deemed dividend, it has to be assessed only in the hands of the shareholder for whose benefit the money was received. Since the assessee-company is not a shareholder of M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd., according to the ld. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Shri Xavier Britto and Smt. Vimalarani Britto. Shri Xavier Britto is holding 50% of the shares in the assesseecompany and Smt. Vimalarani Britto is holding 50% of the shares in the assessee-company. In the case of M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd. Shri Xavier Britto is holding 60% of the shares whereas Smt. Vimalarani Britto is holding 40% of the shares, therefore, as rightly submitted by the ld. DR there are common shareholders in both the companies. The advance received by the assessee-company may be for the benefit of the common shareholders who are holding the shares in the assessee-company. However, for the purpose of assessing the deemed dividend, it has to be assessed only in the hands of the registered shareholder for whose benefit the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
